MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550671001 · doi:10.1121/1.4970032

Modeling wave propagation through the skull for ultrasonic transcranial Doppler

2016· article· en· W2550671001 on OpenAlexaff
Shreyank Gupta, Guillaume Haïat, Catherine Laporte, Pierre Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationAcousticsAttenuation coefficientMaterials scienceTranscranial DopplerImaging phantomUltrasoundAmplitudeTransmission (telecommunications)Transmission coefficientEnergy (signal processing)OpticsPhysicsComputer scienceMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One problem associated with transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) is the relatively low energy penetrating inside the brain through the skull, seriously limiting the image quality. This may be due to the impedance mismatch at the bone interface and to the bone frequency dependent attenuation. The objective of this paper is to model ultrasonic wave propagation through the skull. To do so, an analytical model was developed based on the estimation of the transmission coefficients inside the brain, leading to frequency dependent overall transmission coefficient for a given skin and bone thickness. Moreover, a finite element model was developed taking into account absorption phenomena. Both methods were validated experimentally by comparing the numerical and analytical results with results obtained from a phantom mimicking the skull having an attenuation coefficient equal to 30 dB/cm at 2.25 MHz and a thickness of 4.4 mm. A 2 mm layer of water mimicked the skin. The difference between the maximum amplitude of normalized received US signals obtained analytically and experimentally was 1%. The average relative difference between them was 0.3%. Thus, a working model is designed which can predict the energy inside the brain. Furthermore, the results show that impedance mismatch plays a major role in transmission loss rather than frequency dependent attenuation

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207