MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040187974 · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2012.2358

Large improvement of the electrical impedance of imaging and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) phased arrays using multilayer piezoelectric ceramics coupled in lateral mode

2012· article· en· W2040187974 on OpenAlexaff
Junho Song, Benjamin Lucht, Kullervo Hynynen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsPhased arrayTransducerMaterials scienceElectrical impedanceImpedance matchingPiezoelectricityAcousticsPhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With a change in phased-array configuration from one dimension to two, the electrical impedance of the array elements is substantially increased because of their decreased width (w)-to-thickness (t) ratio. The most common way to compensate for this impedance increase is to employ electrical matching circuits at a high cost of fabrication complexity and effort. In this paper, we introduce a multilayer lateral-mode coupling method for phased-array construction. The direct comparison showed that the electrical impedance of a single-layer transducer driven in thickness mode is 1/(n²(1/(w/t))²) times that of an n-layer lateral mode transducer. A large reduction of the electrical impedance showed the impact and benefit of the lateral-mode coupling method. A one-dimensional linear 32-element 770-kHz imaging array and a 42-element 1.45-MHz high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) phased array were fabricated. The averaged electrical impedances of each element were measured to be 58 Ω at the maximum phase angle of -1.2° for the imaging array and 105 Ω at 0° for the HIFU array. The imaging array had a center frequency of 770 kHz with an averaged -6-dB bandwidth of approximately 52%. For the HIFU array, the averaged maximum surface acoustic intensity was measured to be 32.8 W/cm² before failure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency ControlSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207