Measurement of the thermal conductivity of polyacrylamide tissue-equivalent material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to measure the thermal conductivity of polyacrylamide (PAG) and compare it with previously reported values. Polyacrylamide phantoms play an important role in the development of hyperthermia and high-temperature thermal therapies based on electromagnetic (EM) radiation by providing a material that mimics the electrical and thermal properties of human tissue. The thermal properties of PAG have, up until now, not been thoroughly investigated and at least two significantly different values have been published. In this study, the thermal conductivity of polyacrylamide was measured from the steady state temperature drop across samples exposed to a known heat flux. The measured conductivity was 0.56 +/- 0.047 W m(-1) degrees C(-1). To validate the correct set of thermal properties for polyacrylamide, simple heating experiments were performed in a PAG phantom and then simulated using a finite element numerical model that incorporated the measured thermal conductivity along with literature values for specific heat and density. Temperature predictions from the model agreed with average temperatures measured in the phantom to within 1 SD of the measured temperatures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".