The reduction in treatment efficiency at high acoustic powers during <scp>MR</scp>‐guided transcranial focused ultrasound thalamotomy for Essential Tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze clinical data indicating a reduction in the induced energy-temperature efficiency relationship during transcranial focused ultrasound (FUS) Essential Tremor (ET) thalamotomy treatments at higher acoustic powers, establish its relationship with the spatial distribution of the focal temperature elevation, and explore its cause. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of patients (n = 19) treated between July 2015 and August 2016 for (ET) by FUS thalamotomy was performed. These data were analyzed to compare the relationships between the applied power, the applied energy, the resultant peak temperature achieved in the brain, and the dispersion of the focal volume. Full ethics approval was received and all patients provided signed informed consent forms before the initiation of the study. Computer simulations, animal experiments, and clinical system tests were performed to determine the effects of skull heating, changes in brain properties and transducer acoustic output, respectively. All animal procedures were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee and conformed to the guidelines set out by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. MATLAB was used to perform statistical analysis. RESULTS: The reduction in the energy efficiency relationship during treatment correlates with the increase in size of the focal volume at higher sonication powers. A linear relationship exists showing that a decrease in treatment efficiency correlates positively with an increase in the focal size over the course of treatment (P < 0.01), supporting the hypothesis of transient skull and tissue heating causing acoustic aberrations leading to a decrease in efficiency. Changes in thermal conductivity, perfusion, absorption rates in the brain, as well as ultrasound transducer acoustic output levels were found to have minimal effects on the observed reduction in efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in energy-temperature efficiency during high-power FUS treatments correlated with observed increases in the size of the focal volume and is likely caused by transient changes in the tissue and skull during heating.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".