MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724301680 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/aa7a41

Rheology and heat transport properties of a hydroxyethyl cellulose-based MRI tissue phantom

2017· article· en· W2724301680 on OpenAlexafffund
Yang Liu, Cameron C. Hopkins, William B. Handler, Blaine A. Chronik, John R. de Bruyn

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsRheologyImaging phantomConvectionMaterials scienceConvective heat transferThermal conductionViscosityMechanicsElectrical conductorViscoelasticityBiomedical engineeringComposite materialOpticsPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A saline solution of hydroxyethyl cellulose has been recommended for use as a tissue phantom in testing the behavior of medical devices in MRI scanners. It has been stated in the standards governing these tests that the viscosity of the fluid used should be large enough that bulk transport or convection currents are not supported. In this study we evaluated a hydroxyethyl cellulose phantom based on an ASTM standard to determine the degree to which it supports convective, as compared to conductive, heat transport. We study the rheological properties of this fluid, and find that it behaves as a typical viscoelastic polymer solution. As a result, it flows in response to local heating, such as would occur due to eddy-current heating of a metallic device in an MR scanner. We use laboratory experiments and numerical simulations to determine the convective and conductive contributions to the heat transport in a simple model of this system. Our results indicate that convective heat transport is of the same order of magnitude as conductive transport under conditions typical of MRI device tests. This indicates that heating tests conducted with this fluid are not completely conservative in terms of estimating local temperature changes for medical devices in vivo . It also indicates that convective processes should be included along with conduction in computer simulations of device heating in order to allow accurate comparison with experimental measurements.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Physics & Engineering ExpressSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207