MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141211939 · doi:10.1118/1.2936771

Performance evaluation of different implementations of the Lagrangian speckle model estimator for non-invasive vascular ultrasound elastography

2008· article· en· W2141211939 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth Mercure, Guy Cloutier, Cédric Schmitt, Roch L. Maurice

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElastographyImaging phantomSpeckle patternEstimatorUltrasoundMathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmPhysicsArtificial intelligenceAcousticsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-invasive vascular ultrasound elastography (NIVE) was recently introduced to characterize mechanical properties of carotid arteries for stroke prevention. Using the Lagrangian speckle model estimator (LSME), the four components of the 2D deformation matrix (delta), which are the axial strain (delta(yy)) and shear (delta(yx)) and the lateral strain (delta(xx)) and shear (delta(xy)), can be computed. This paper overviews four different implementations of the LSME and addresses their reliability. These implementations include two unconstrained (L&M and L&M+) and one constrained (ITER(c)) iterative algorithms, and one optical flow-based (OF-based) algorithm. The theoretical frameworks were supported by biomechanical simulations of a pathology-free vessel wall and by one single layer vessel-mimicking phantom study. Regarding simulations, the four LSME implementations provided similar biases on axial motion parameters, except the L&M that outperformed other methods with a minimum strain bias of -3%. LSME axial motion estimates showed good consistence with theory, namely the OF-based algorithm that in a specific instance estimated delta(yy) with no relative error on the standard deviation. With regards to lateral motion parameters, ITER(c) exhibited a minimum strain bias of -8.5% when ultrasound beam and motion mostly run parallel, whereas L&M performs strain and shear estimates with less than 23% bias independently of orientations. The in vitro vessel phantom data showed LSME delta(yy) and delta(yx) maps that were qualitatively equivalent to theory, and noisy delta(xx) and delta(xy) elastograms. In summary, the authors propose to promote the OF-based LSME as an optimal choice for further applications of NIVE, because of its reliability to compute both axial strain and shear motion parameters and because it outperformed the other implementations by a factor of 30 or more in terms of processing time.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207