MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267454268 · doi:10.1142/9789812771391_0002

MODELING TECHNIQUES FOR LIVER TISSUE PROPERTIES AND THEIR APPLICATION IN SURGICAL TREATMENT OF LIVER CANCER

2007· book-chapter· en· W2267454268 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Marc Schwartz, Denis Laurendeau, Marc Denninger, Denis Rancourt, CLOVIS SIMO

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Scientific Publishing Company eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiver cancerLiver tissueMedicineCancerGeneral surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents a modeling approach for soft tissue properties designed at Laval University as part of the development of a simulation system for liver surgery. Surgery simulation aims at providing physicians with tools allowing extensive training and precise planning of interventions. The design of such simulation systems requires accurate geometrical and mechanical models of the organs of the human body, as well as fast computation algorithms suitable for real-time conditions. Most existing systems use very simple mechanical models, based on the laws of linear elasticity. Numerous biomechanical results yet indicate that biological tissues exhibit much more complex behavior, including important non-linear and viscoelastic effects. In Sec. 1, we start by reviewing existing methods for the simulation of biological soft tissues. The approach used in our implementation, based on the tensor–mass model, is described in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3, we discuss the implementation issues and show how the efficiency of this model can be improved by an implementation on a distributed computer architecture. Finally, an experimental validation performed on liver tissue and an approach for simulating topological changes are presented in Secs. 4 and 5.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Scientific Publishing Company eBooksSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207