Microbubble-enhanced high intensity focused ultrasound therapy: effect of exposure parameters on thermal lesion volume and temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbubble agents have been shown to increase therapeutic effect of HIFU (high intensity focused ultrasound). Here, the effects of treatment parameters on lesion volume and temperature are investigated. Ex vivo tissue was treated with a 2 MHz HIFU beam in absence and presence of the Artenga™ microbubbles at varying HIFU focal intensities (649-2316 W/cm2), microbubble concentrations, and exposure durations (3-10 s). The temperature was measured at 1 mm from focus using a K-type thermocouple. Thermal lesion volume was measured based on an ellipsoid model. Microbubbles increased the lesion volume and peak temperature achieved with HIFU. At the intensity of 2316 W/cm2, the lesion volume increased by 2-folds, and the peak temperature increased by 16° C with microbubbles. This effect depended on microbubble concentration, ultrasound intensity and exposure duration. Lower intensities and shorter time durations were required at higher microbubble concentrations to ablate the tissue. It was concluded that the efficacy of the HIFU therapy in combination with microbubbles can be controlled through ultrasound/microbubble exposure parameters
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".