MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536026736 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2008.0486

Ultrasound backscattering by three-dimensional distributions of aggregated red blood cells: A Monte Carlo study

2008· article· en· W2536026736 on OpenAlexafffund
Ratan K. Saha, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodMorse potentialEnergy (signal processing)Materials scienceComputational physicsChemistryPhysicsStatistical physicsAtomic physicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a Monte Carlo study on ultrasound backscattering by three-dimensional distributions of aggregated red blood cells (RBCs). In this study, particles were allowed to interact attractively with neighbors to form aggregates. The interaction potential energy profile between a pair of particles was mimicked by the Morse potential. The strength of pair interaction energy was controlled by fixing depth and width of the potential. Some three-dimensional configurations of cells representing realizations of the system were simulated by employing the Metropolis algorithm. The frequency dependent backscattering coefficient (BSC) was determined at three hematocrits, H = 20%, 30% and 40% and at different aggregation levels. It was noticed that BSC increased and spectral slope (SS) decreased as the aggregating potential was raised and the effect was more pronounced at higher hematocrits, particularly at 40%. In conclusion, this model can generate three-dimensional configurations of aggregated cells and can capture the role of RBC aggregation on BSC and SS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207