MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2041463002 · doi:10.1117/12.878775

Turbulence intensity in a region of interest 2cm distal to the carotid bifurcation in a family of seven anthropomorphic flow phantoms

2011· article· en· W2041463002 on OpenAlexafffund
Janet L. Powell, Tamie L. Poepping

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCardiac cycleCarotid bifurcationTurbulenceBifurcationRoot mean squareIntensity (physics)MathematicsFlow (mathematics)PhysicsStenosisNuclear medicineGeometryMechanicsMedicineOpticsCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An in vitro flow system has been used to assess the flow disturbances downstream of the stenosis in a family of seven carotid bifurcation phantoms modelling varying plaque build-up both axially symmetrically (concentrically) and asymmetrically (eccentrically). Radio frequency data were collected for 10 s at each of over 1000 sites within each model, and a sliding 1024-point FFT is applied to the data to extract the Doppler spectrum every 12 ms. From this, the ensemble average over 10 cardiac cycles of the spectral mean velocity, and the root mean square over these same 10 cardiac cycles - the turbulence intensity (TI), can be obtained as a function of an ensemble averaged cardiac cycle at each spatial point in all phantoms. TI was investigated by looking at the average over a 25 mm2 square region of interest in the ICA centered 2 cm distal to the apex of the bifurcation. TI in the region of interest increased with stenosis severity; at 23ms following peak systole, the time point when TI was maximal for the majority of models, this ranged from 2.4±0.1 cm/s in the non-diseased model to 6.6±0.3, 16.0±1.4 and 26.1±1.3 cm/s in the 30, 50 and 70% concentrically stenosed (by NASCET criteria) models, respectively. Similarly, TI was 8.3±0.7, 19.9±1.1, and 26.2±1.2 cm/s in the 30, 50 and 70% eccentrically stenosed models, respectively. Differences in TI between models, both in increasing stenosis severity and between eccentricities, were statistically different except between the 70% concentric and eccentric models.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→