MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025340731 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/302

Two-dimensional MR elastography with linear inversion reconstruction: methodology and noise analysis

2000· article· en· W2025340731 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Bishop, Abbas Samani, Justin Sciarretta, Donald B. Plewes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsElastographyMagnetic resonance elastographyPlane stressConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceNoise (video)Inverse problemAcousticsAlgorithmMathematical optimizationPhysicsMathematical analysisMathematicsGeometryUltrasoundArtificial intelligenceFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A methodology for imposing approximate plane strain conditions in magnetic resonance elastography through physical constraint is described. Under plane strain conditions, data acquisition and analysis may be conducted in two dimensions, which reduces imaging and reconstruction time significantly compared with three-dimensional analysis. Simulations and experiments are performed to illustrate the constraint concept. A signal/noise analysis of a two-dimensional linear inversion technique for relative elastic modulus is undertaken, and modifications to the numerical method are described which can reduce the SNR requirements by a factor of two to four. Experimentally measured data are reconstructed to illustrate the performance of the method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207