MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of Spectral Doppler in Preclinical Ultrasound Using a Small-Size Rotating Phantom

2013· article· en· W2120784645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xin Yang, Chao Sun, T. Anderson, Carmel M. Moran, Patrick W. F. Hadoke, Gillian A. Gray, Peter R. Hoskins

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Medicine & Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsImaging phantomDoppler effectUltrasoundDoppler ultrasoundBlood flowBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceObservational errorOpticsNuclear medicinePhysicsAcousticsMedicineRadiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preclinical ultrasound scanners are used to measure blood flow in small animals, but the potential errors in blood velocity measurements have not been quantified. This investigation rectifies this omission through the design and use of phantoms and evaluation of measurement errors for a preclinical ultrasound system (Vevo 770, Visualsonics, Toronto, ON, Canada). A ray model of geometric spectral broadening was used to predict velocity errors. A small-scale rotating phantom, made from tissue-mimicking material, was developed. True and Doppler-measured maximum velocities of the moving targets were compared over a range of angles from 10° to 80°. Results indicate that the maximum velocity was overestimated by up to 158% by spectral Doppler. There was good agreement (<10%) between theoretical velocity errors and measured errors for beam-target angles of 50°-80°. However, for angles of 10°-40°, the agreement was not as good (>50%). The phantom is capable of validating the performance of blood velocity measurement in preclinical ultrasound.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Medicine & BiologySame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207