MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095386272 · doi:10.1121/1.1771615

Adapting the Lagrangian speckle model estimator for endovascular elastography: Theory and validation with simulated radio-frequency data

2004· article· en· W2095386272 on OpenAlexafffund
Roch L. Maurice, Jacques Ohayon, Gérard Finet, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntravascular ultrasoundElastographySpeckle patternEstimatorComputer scienceFinite element methodUltrasound3D ultrasoundAcousticsRadiologyPhysicsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is known to be the reference tool for preoperative vessel lesion assessments and for endovascular therapy planning. Nevertheless, IVUS echograms only provide subjective information about vessel wall lesions. Since changes in the vascular tissue stiffness are characteristic of vessel pathologies, catheter-based endovascular ultrasound elastography (EVE) has been proposed in the literature as a method for outlining the elastic properties of vessel walls. In this paper, the Lagrangian Speckle Model Estimator (LSME) is formulated for investigations in EVE, i.e., using a polar coordinate system. The method was implemented through an adapted version of the Levenberg-Marquardt minimization algorithm, using the optical flow equations to compute the Jacobbian matrix. The theoretical framework was validated with simulated ultrasound rf data of mechanically complex vessel wall pathologies. The results, corroborated with Ansys finite element software, demonstrated the potential of EVE to provide useful information about the heterogeneous nature of atherosclerotic plaques.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations66
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207