The impact of standing wave effects on transcranial focused ultrasound disruption of the blood–brain barrier in a rat model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microbubble-mediated disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) for targeted drug delivery using focused ultrasound shows great potential as a therapy for a wide range of brain disorders. This technique is currently at the pre-clinical stage and important work is being conducted in animal models. Measurements of standing waves in ex vivo rat skulls were conducted using an optical hydrophone and a geometry dependence was identified. Standing waves could not be eliminated through the use of swept frequencies, which have been suggested to eliminate standing waves. Definitive standing wave patterns were detected in over 25% of animals used in a single study. Standing waves were successfully eliminated using a wideband composite sharply focused transducer and a reduced duty cycle. The modified pulse parameters were used in vivo to disrupt the BBB in a rat indicating that, unlike some other bioeffects, BBB disruption is not dependent on standing wave conditions. Due to the high variability of standing waves and the inability to correctly estimate in situ pressures given standing wave conditions, attempts to minimize standing waves should be made in all future work in this field to ensure that results are clinically translatable.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it