MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115941784 · doi:10.3233/thc-2005-13411

Detection and correction of aliasing in ultrasonic measurement of blood flows with Ultrasonic-Measurement-Integrated simulation

2005· article· en· W2115941784 on OpenAlexaff
Kenichi Funamoto, Toshiyuki Hayase, Yoshifumi Saijo, Tomoyuki Yambe

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Health Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAliasingUltrasonic sensorComputer scienceDoppler effectAlgorithmAcousticsComputer visionFilter (signal processing)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed information of real blood flows is essential to develop an accurate diagnosis or treatment for serious circulatory diseases such as aortic aneurysms. Ultrasonic-Measurement-Integrated (UMI) simulation, in which feedback signals from the ultrasonic measurement make the simulation converge to the real blood flow, is a key to solving this problem. However, aliasing in the ultrasonic blood velocity measurement causes UMI simulation to converge to an erroneous result. In this paper, we have investigated the detection and the correction of aliasing in UMI simulation. The artificial force in the feedback of UMI simulation can be used as an index to detect the aliasing. We have proposed two ways for the correction of the aliasing. Correction A, in which measurement velocity is replaced with the computational one at the monitoring point where the aliasing is detected, substantially improves the accuracy of UMI simulation. Correction B, in which measurement velocity is replaced with an estimated Doppler velocity, can provide exactly the same result as that of UMI simulation using the nonaliased standard solution. Although correction B gives the most accurate result, correction A seems more robust and, therefore, a beneficial choice considering the other artifacts in the measurement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and Health CareSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207