MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135500785 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.260523

Towards a Biomechanical-Based Method for Assessing Myocardial Tissue Viability

2006· article· en· W2135500785 on OpenAlexaff
Cristian A. Linte, Marcin Wierzbicki, Usaf E. Aladl, Terry M. Peters, Abbas Samani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContractilityCardiac cycleComputer scienceVentricleContraction (grammar)Artificial intelligenceMyocardial infarctionBiomedical engineeringComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)CardiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents the first steps towards the development and implementation of a novel 3D biomechanical-based method for assessing the viability of myocardial tissue, with particular interest for its application in myocardial infarction (MI) diagnosis. This assessment technique quantifies the myocardial contraction forces developed within the ventricular myofibrils in response to the electrophysiological stimulus. In this manuscript we provide a 3D finite element (FE) formulation of a contraction force reconstruction algorithm based on an inverse problem solution of linear elasticity, along with its implementation using clinical data. This algorithm has been applied to patient-specific models obtained by extracting anatomical features from high-resolution, high-contrast magnetic resonance (MR) cardiac images. The input consists of motion information extracted by nonrigid registration of the mid-diastole reference image to the remaining images of the 4D data set, acquired using ECG-gating throughout the cardiac cycle. The result consists of a display-map of the contraction force distribution superimposed on the anatomical ventricle model, which allows the clinician to identify regions of low contractility in the myocardium.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207