MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622662710 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178521

A numerical framework for interstitial fluid pressure imaging in poroelastic MRE

2017· article· en· W2622662710 on OpenAlexaff
Likun Tan, Matthew McGarry, Elijah E. W. Van Houten, Ming Ji, Ligin Solamen, Wei Zeng, John B. Weaver, Keith D. Paulsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsPoromechanicsImaging phantomMagnetic resonance elastographyNonlinear systemHydraulic conductivityElastographyMaterials scienceFinite element methodCompressibilityAcousticsMechanicsPhysicsBiomedical engineeringGeologyPorosityPorous mediumComposite materialOpticsMedicineThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical framework for interstitial fluid pressure imaging (IFPI) in biphasic materials is investigated based on three-dimensional nonlinear finite element poroelastic inversion. The objective is to reconstruct the time-harmonic pore-pressure field from tissue excitation in addition to the elastic parameters commonly associated with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE). The unknown pressure boundary conditions (PBCs) are estimated using the available full-volume displacement data from MRE. A subzone-based nonlinear inversion (NLI) technique is then used to update mechanical and hydrodynamical properties, given the appropriate subzone PBCs, by solving a pressure forward problem (PFP). The algorithm was evaluated on a single-inclusion phantom in which the elastic property and hydraulic conductivity images were recovered. Pressure field and material property estimates had spatial distributions reflecting their true counterparts in the phantom geometry with RMS errors around 20% for cases with 5% noise, but degraded significantly in both spatial distribution and property values for noise levels > 10%. When both shear moduli and hydraulic conductivity were estimated along with the pressure field, property value error rates were as high as 58%, 85% and 32% for the three quantities, respectively, and their spatial distributions were more distorted. Opportunities for improving the algorithm are discussed.

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)0.002
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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207