Sensitivity analysis of pars-tensa young’s modulus estimation using inverse finite-element modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimates of the pars-tensa (PT) Young’s modulus (EPT) are required in finite-element (FE) modeling studies of the middle ear. Previously, we introduced an in-situ EPT estimation technique by optimizing a sample-specific FE model to match experimental eardrum pressurization data. This optimization process requires choosing some modeling assumptions such as PT thickness and boundary conditions. These assumptions are reported with a wide range of variation in the literature, hence affecting the reliability of the models. In addition, the sensitivity of the estimated EPT to FE modeling assumptions has not been studied. Therefore, the objective of this study is to identify the most influential modeling assumption on EPT estimates. The middle-ear cavity extracted from a cadaveric temporal bone was pressurized to 500 Pa. The deformed shape of the eardrum after pressurization was measured using a Fourier transform profilometer (FTP). A base-line FE model of the unpressurized middle ear was created. The EPT was estimated using golden section optimization method, which minimizes the cost function comparing the deformed FE model shape to the measured shape after pressurization. The effect of varying the modeling assumptions on EPT estimates were investigated. This included the change in PT thickness, pars flaccida Young’s modulus and possible FTP measurement error. The most influential parameter on EPT estimation was PT thickness and the least influential parameter was pars flaccida Young’s modulus. The results of this study provide insight into how different parameters affect the results of EPT optimization and which parameters’ uncertainties require further investigation to develop robust estimation techniques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".