MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2068667539 · doi:10.1121/1.4708435

High frequency subharmonic imaging: practical implementations and recent developments

2012· article· en· W2068667539 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Needles, Verya Daeichin, Hans G. Bosch, Nico de Jong, A Van Der Steen, F. Stuart Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreFujiFilm VisualSonics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubharmonicMicrobubblesComputer scienceSecond-harmonic imaging microscopyHarmonicRadio frequencyDemodulationPulse repetition frequencySIGNAL (programming language)Contrast (vision)AcousticsUltrasoundNonlinear systemPhysicsArtificial intelligenceOpticsSecond-harmonic generationTelecommunicationsLaserChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-frequency ultrasound systems have been developed to provide appropriate imaging resolution for small anatomical structures. Typical applications include small animal preclinical research as well as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in larger animals and humans. In addition to traditional B-Mode (structural) and Doppler (functional) imaging, contrast detection modes have been implemented on these systems to improve the sensitivity to microbubbles in the microcirculation. This talk will overview some examples of these implementations and their respective advantages and disadvantages. Examples include direct radio frequency (RF) filtering and pulse sequence approaches, on both single element and array based systems. Additionally, subharmonic imaging will be compared to other harmonic detection approaches (namely nonlinear fundamental and second harmonic) and cases where subharmonic only detection is optimal at high frequencies. Recent advances explore the use of the self-demodulation phenomena to enhance to contribution of the subharmonic signal from microbubbles and improve detection. Examples of in vivo data from mice and rats will be shown, illustrating the ability to detect changes in blood perfusion by analyzing contrast uptake over time with curve fitting algorithms. Finally, the detection of microbubbles targeted to endothelial cells, using subharmonic imaging in small animals, will be demonstrated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications→French-language works237,207→