MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091942523 · doi:10.1117/12.2006732

Non-invasive measurement of pressure gradients using ultrasound

2013· article· en· W2091942523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob B. Olesen, Marie Sand Traberg, Michael Johannes Pihl, Jørgen Arendt Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard deviationImaging phantomIsotropyTransverse planeUltrasoundEstimatorConstrictionPressure gradientPhysicsScannerGeometryTransducerMathematicsBiomedical engineeringMechanicsAcousticsAnatomyOpticsStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A non-invasive method for estimating 2-D pressure gradients from ultrasound vector velocity data is presented. The method relies on in-plane vector velocity elds acquired using the Transverse Oscillation method. The pressure gradients are estimated by applying the Navier-Stokes equations for isotropic uids to the estimated velocity elds. The velocity elds were measured for a steady ow on a carotid bifurcation phantom (Shelley Medical, Canada) with a 70% constriction on the internal branch. Scanning was performed with a BK8670 linear transducer (BK Medical, Denmark) connected to a BK Medical 2202 UltraView Pro Focus scanner. The results are validated through nite element simulations of the carotid ow model where the geometry is determined from MR images. This proof of concept study was conducted at nine ultrasound frames per second. Estimated pressure gradients along the longitudinal direction of the constriction varied from 0 kPa/m to 10 kPa/m with a normalized bias of -9.1% for the axial component and -7.9% for the lateral component. The relative standard deviation of the estimator, given in reference to the peak gradient, was 28.4% in the axial direction and 64.5% in the lateral direction. A study made across the constriction was also conducted. This yielded magnitudes from 0 kPa/m to 7 kPa/m with a normalized bias of -5.7% and 13.9% for the axial and lateral component, respectively. The relative standard deviations of this study were 45.2% and 83.2% in the axial and lateral direction, respectively.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207