MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314136082 · doi:10.1177/0161734615573030

Application of Eshelby’s Solution to Elastography for Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

2015· article· en· W2314136082 on OpenAlexaff
Bonghun Shin, Darindra Gopaul, Samantha Fienberg, Hyock Ju Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasonic Imaging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElastographyElastic modulusBreast cancerMaterials scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)UltrasoundUltrasound elastographyLesionMalignancyRadiologyMedicineComposite materialCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eshelby's solution is the analytical method that can derive the elastic field within and around an ellipsoidal inclusion embedded in a matrix. Since breast tumor can be regarded as an elastic inclusion with different elastic properties from those of surrounding matrix when the deformation is small, we applied Eshelby's solution to predict the stress and strain fields in the breast containing a suspicious lesion. The results were used to investigate the effectiveness of strain ratio (SR) from elastography in representing modulus ratio (MR) that may be the meaningful indicator of the malignancy of the lesion. This study showed that SR significantly underestimates MR and is varied with the shape and the modulus of the lesion. Based on the results from Eshelby's solution and finite element analysis (FEA), we proposed a surface regression model as a polynomial function that can predict the MR of the lesion to the matrix. The model has been applied to gelatin-based phantoms and clinical ultrasound images of human breasts containing different types of lesions. The results suggest the potential of the proposed method to improve the diagnostic performance of breast cancer using elastography.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasonic ImagingSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207