MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896962288 · doi:10.1121/1.5068031

Inverse characterization of radius bone using low-frequency ultrasonic guided waves

2018· article· en· W2896962288 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Pereira, Julio Fernandes, Pierre Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonic sensorMaterials scienceRADIUSInverseTransducerFinite element methodCortical boneModulusCylinderCharacterization (materials science)Young's modulusTomographyAcousticsElastic modulusInverse problemPiezoelectricityOpticsPhysicsMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysisComposite materialAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of the cortical bone characterization using the axial transmission is highly dependent on the inversion model used to match experimental data with the true bone properties. Simplified models such as plate or cylinder are typically used in the literature. In our previous work, a more elaborate model based on a bone-like geometry built using semi-analytical finite element (SAFE) method was introduced. The model was successfully implemented in an inverse characterization routine using laboratory-controlled measurements on bone phantoms. Thus, the aim of this work is to apply the proposed inverse scheme on the characterization of ex-vivo radius samples. In order to do so, five radiuses were taken from donors aged between 53 and 88 years old and tested using typical axial transmission configuration. Ultrasonic guided wave modes were excited at low-frequency (100-400 kHz) using a piezoelectric transducer and measured using a laser interferometer at the middle of the diaphysis. The measured velocities were systematically compared to velocities obtained with the SAFE model in order to predict the cortical bone properties. For each sample, four parameters were estimated: (1) Young’s modulus; (2) density; (3) thickness; and (4) outer diameter. The results showed a notable correlation of the thickness and outer diameter with respect to the μCT images of the samples, while a less significant correlation was observed for the Young’s modulus and density with respect to the gray level of the μCT images.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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