Comparison and Accuracy of Carotid Plaque Analysis Between Two- and Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plaque characterization using traditional two-dimensional (2D) imaging and/or three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonographic (US) techniques is a new method for evaluating artery wall morphology and plaque risk stratification. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare 2D and 3D US, measuring the interobservation differences for specific plaque-imaging analyses. Phantoms that simulated various types of atherosclerotic plaque pathology were imaged and findings reported by three experienced sonographers. Interobservation agreement and subanalyses were created. For each type of plaque pathology, agreement was moderate; however, conformity increased with the application of 3D US versus 2D US alone. Agreement was best for the identification of fissures, ulcerations, and irregular plaque surface. Advanced sonographic techniques for carotid plaque imaging provide a reproducible method in the analysis and morphologic assessment of simulated carotid atheromatous lesions, with superior interobserver variability. Three-dimensional US improves visualization of some pathologies and may provide additional information in the evaluation and risk stratification of vulnerable carotid plaque.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".