MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098903333 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2010.5936000

A simulation study on ultrasound backscattering by cell aggregates with poly-disperse cells

2010· article· en· W2098903333 on OpenAlexafffund
Ratan K. Saha, Michael C. Kolios

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBackscatter (email)GaussianRayleigh scatteringHistogramMonte Carlo methodRayleigh distributionMaterials scienceEnvelope (radar)Superposition principleDispersityAmplitudeComputational physicsSIGNAL (programming language)OpticsPhysicsStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Monte Carlo simulation study on ultrasound backscattering by cell aggregates with poly-disperse cells is discussed. The nuclei in a cell aggregate were assumed as scatterers and the Anderson model was used to obtain backscattering amplitude for each nucleus. The resultant backscatter echo from many particles was determined by using linear superposition of backscatter signals emitted by the nuclei. The random sequential adsorption (RSA) method was employed to generate spatial organizations of nuclei. The frequency dependent backscattering coefficient (BSC) and signal envelope statistics were obtained from tissue samples with different size distributions. For each poly-disperse sample the nuclear populations followed a Gaussian distribution with the nuclear packing fraction fixed at 50.36%. It was found that integrated backscattering coefficient (IBSC) computed between 10-30 MHz increased about 7 dB for the highest poly-disperse sample considered compared to that of a mono-disperse sample. A Gaussian input pulse was employed to investigate signal envelope statistics. It was found that envelope histograms followed the Rayleigh distribution. The Rayleigh fit parameter (σ) increased as dispersity increased. For example, for the highest poly-disperse sample, σ increased about 105% and 157% compared to mono-disperse sample for input pulses with 5 and 25 MHz as the center frequencies and 80% bandwidths. The present work shows that poly-dispersity contributes to ultrasound backscatter but the shapes of histograms did not vary with the size distribution of scatterers.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207