MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072387177 · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2011.2129

Forward Problem Study of an Effective Medium Model for Ultrasound Blood Characterization

2011· article· en· W2072387177 on OpenAlexaff
Émilie Franceschini, Bloen Metzger, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiquePennsylvania State University
KeywordsAggregate (composite)Compact spaceHematocritComputational physicsGoodness of fitErythrocyte aggregationBiological systemPhysicsMathematicsAlgorithmAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mathematical analysisMaterials scienceChemistryStatisticsChromatographyNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure factor model (SFM) is a scattering model developed to simulate the backscattering coefficient (BSC) of aggregated red blood cells (RBCs). However, the SFM can hardly be implemented to estimate the structural aggregate parameters in the framework of an inverse problem formulation. A scattering model called the effective medium theory combined with the SFM (EMTSFM) is thus proposed to approximate the SFM. The EMTSFM assumes that aggregates of RBCs can be treated as individual homogeneous scatterers, which have effective properties determined by the acoustical characteristics and concentration of RBCs within aggregates. The EMTSFM parameterizes the BSC by three indices: the aggregate radius, the concentration of RBCs with- in aggregates (the aggregate compactness), and the systemic hematocrit. The goodness of fit of the EMTSFM approximation in comparison with the SFM was then examined. Based on a 2-D study, the EMTSFM was found to approximate the SFM with relative errors less than 30% for a product of the wavenumber times the mean aggregate radius krΛκ <; 1.32. The main contribution of this work is the parameterization of the BSC with the RBC aggregate compactness, which is of relevance in clinical hemorheology because it reflects the binding energy between RBCs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations52
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency ControlSame topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207