MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054900307 · doi:10.1118/1.2955550

Quantification of carotid vessel wall and plaque thickness change using 3D ultrasound images

2008· article· en· W2054900307 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Chiu, Micaela Egger, J. David Spence, Grace Párraga, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLumen (anatomy)MedicineUltrasound3D ultrasoundSegmentationCarotid arteriesMedical imagingRadiologyBiomedical engineeringCardiologyInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative measurements of carotid plaque burden progression or regression are important in monitoring patients and in evaluation of new treatment options. 3D ultrasound (US) has been used to monitor the progression or regression of carotid artery plaques. This paper reports on the development and application of a method used to analyze changes in carotid plaque morphology from 3D US. The technique used is evaluated using manual segmentations of the arterial wall and lumen from 3D US images acquired in two imaging sessions. To reduce the effect of segmentation variability, segmentation was performed five times each for the wall and lumen. The mean wall and lumen surfaces, computed from this set of five segmentations, were matched on a point-by-point basis, and the distance between each pair of corresponding points served as an estimate of the combined thickness of the plaque, intima, and media (vessel-wall-plus-plaque thickness or VWT). The VWT maps associated with the first and the second US images were compared and the differences of VWT were obtained at each vertex. The 3D VWT and VWT-Change maps may provide important information for evaluating the location of plaque progression in relation to the localized disturbances of flow pattern, such as oscillatory shear, and regression in response to medical treatments.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207