MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096457754 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2004.1417763

High frequency b-mode ultrasound blood flow estimation in the microvasculature

2005· preprint· en· W2096457754 on OpenAlexaff
D. Vray, Andrew Needles, Victor X. D. Yang, F. Stuart Foster

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsSpeckle patternBlood flowUltrasoundDoppler effectFlow velocityImaging phantomFlow visualizationFlow (mathematics)Intensity (physics)Biomedical engineeringOpticsPhysicsAcousticsMechanicsMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High frequency ultrasound imaging has shown great ability in various applications for visualization of the microcirculation. A new speckle-variance flow processing (SFP) algorithm has been developed for noninvasive estimation of slow blood flow. This technique is based on analyzing the changes of B-mode image intensity along sequences of images. The method has been evaluated on a flow phantom with blood-mimicking fluid in the velocity range from 0.1 mm/s to 30 mm/s. The velocity index estimated with the SFP method shows a linear increase as a function of calibrated flow velocity in the range of 0.1 mm/s to 1.5 mm/s. For larger flow velocities, the SFP index acts as a motion detector. Results have been compared with speckle tracking (ST) flow velocity estimation and give good agreement. Ultrasound image sequences have been processed with the proposed method. This demonstrates the feasibility of mapping slow blood flow in real time with a non-Doppler method.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207