MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054155009 · doi:10.1063/1.4896258

The analysis and compensation of cortical thickness effect on ultrasonic backscatter signals in cancellous bone

2014· article· en· W2054155009 on OpenAlexaff
Chengcheng Liu, Dean Ta, Bo Hu, Lawrence H. Le, Weiqi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBackscatter (email)AmplitudeCancellous boneUltrasonic sensorCortical boneCompensation (psychology)SIGNAL (programming language)ChemistryMaterials scienceReflection (computer programming)Biomedical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)AcousticsOpticsAnatomyPhysicsTelecommunicationsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the influence of the overlying cortical shell on ultrasonic backscatter signal in cancellous bone, ultrasonic backscatter simulations were carried out by a three dimensional finite difference time domain method. The simulated signals were obtained for various cortical thickness (CTh) and three central frequencies (1, 2.25, and 3.5 MHz). The integrated reflection coefficient (IRC), integrated transmission coefficient, and apparent integrated backscatter (AIB) were calculated from the signals. The results showed that the IRC oscillated with amplitudes decreasing with increasing CTh and the amplitudes diminished gradually when CTh was over 2.18 mm. The AIB fluctuated and decreased as the CTh increased (R = −0.72 ∼ −0.90, p < 0.05), and the amplitudes were much smaller when the CTh was over 2.18 mm. After removing the multiple reflections in the cortical shell, the corresponding AIB (referred as AIB−c) decreased and the fluctuations were smaller (R = −0.80 ∼ −0.96, p < 0.05). An explicit compensation method for the cortical effect was proposed. No significant correlations were observed between the CTh and the compensated AIB (CAIB: R = −0.19 ∼ 0.26, p > 0.05, and CAIB−c: R = −0.09 ∼ −0.00, p > 0.05, respectively), and the fluctuations in CAIB−c were also reduced. The results demonstrated that the effect of cortical thickness on backscatter signals was removed by the compensation method proposed in this study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207