Ultrasound viscoelasticity assessment using an adaptive torsional shear wave propagation method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Different approaches have been used in dynamic elastography to assess mechanical properties of biological tissues. Most techniques are based on a simple inversion based on the measurement of the shear wave speed to assess elasticity, whereas some recent strategies use more elaborated analytical or finite element method (FEM) models. In this study, a new method is proposed for the quantification of both shear storage and loss moduli of confined lesions, in the context of breast imaging, using adaptive torsional shear waves (ATSWs) generated remotely with radiation pressure. METHODS: A FEM model was developed to solve the inverse wave propagation problem and obtain viscoelastic properties of interrogated media. The inverse problem was formulated and solved in the frequency domain and its robustness to noise and geometric constraints was evaluated. The proposed model was validated in vitro with two independent rheology methods on several homogeneous and heterogeneous breast tissue-mimicking phantoms over a broad range of frequencies (up to 400 Hz). RESULTS: Viscoelastic properties matched benchmark rheology methods with discrepancies of 8%-38% for the shear modulus G' and 9%-67% for the loss modulus G″. The robustness study indicated good estimations of storage and loss moduli (maximum mean errors of 19% on G' and 32% on G″) for signal-to-noise ratios between 19.5 and 8.5 dB. Larger errors were noticed in the case of biases in lesion dimension and position. CONCLUSIONS: The ATSW method revealed that it is possible to estimate the viscoelasticity of biological tissues with torsional shear waves when small biases in lesion geometry exist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".