Arterial Mechanical Motion Estimation Based on a Semi-Rigid Body Deformation Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial motion estimation in ultrasound (US) sequences is a hard task due to noise and discontinuities in the signal derived from US artifacts. Characterizing the mechanical properties of the artery is a promising novel imaging technique to diagnose various cardiovascular pathologies and a new way of obtaining relevant clinical information, such as determining the absence of dicrotic peak, estimating the Augmentation Index (AIx), the arterial pressure or the arterial stiffness. One of the advantages of using US imaging is the non-invasive nature of the technique unlike Intra Vascular Ultra Sound (IVUS) or angiography invasive techniques, plus the relative low cost of the US units. In this paper, we propose a semi rigid deformable method based on Soft Bodies dynamics realized by a hybrid motion approach based on cross-correlation and optical flow methods to quantify the elasticity of the artery. We evaluate and compare different techniques (for instance optical flow methods) on which our approach is based. The goal of this comparative study is to identify the best model to be used and the impact of the accuracy of these different stages in the proposed method. To this end, an exhaustive assessment has been conducted in order to decide which model is the most appropriate for registering the variation of the arterial diameter over time. Our experiments involved a total of 1620 evaluations within nine simulated sequences of 84 frames each and the estimation of four error metrics. We conclude that our proposed approach obtains approximately 2.5 times higher accuracy than conventional state-of-the-art techniques.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".