A novel composite material specifically developed for ultrasound bone phantoms: cortical, trabecular and skull
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the various stages of developing diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, the use of phantoms can play a very important role in improving the process, help in implementation, testing and calibrations. Phantoms are especially useful in developing new applications and training new doctors in medical schools. However, devices that use different physical factors, such as MRI, Ultrasound, CT Scan, etc will require the phantom to be made of different physical properties. In this paper we introduce the properties of recently designed new materials for developing phantoms for ultrasonic human body investigation, which in today's market make up more than 30% in the world of phantoms. We developed a novel composite material which allows fabrication of various kinds of ultrasound bone phantoms to mimic most of the acoustical properties of human bones. In contrast to the ex vivo tissues, the proposed material can maintain the physical and acoustical properties unchanged for long periods of time; moreover, these properties can be custom designed and created to suit specific needs. As a result, we introduce three examples of ultrasound phantoms that we manufactured in our laboratory: cortical, trabecular and skull bone phantoms. The paper also presents the results of a comparison study between the acoustical and physical properties of actual human bones (reported in the referenced literatures) and the phantoms manufactured by us.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".