MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902340062 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aaf59a

Shear wave propagation in viscoelastic media: validation of an approximate forward model

2018· article· en· W2902340062 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Zvietcovich, Natalie Baddour, Jannick P. Rolland, Kevin J. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsViscoelasticityLossy compressionShear wavesElastographyFinite element methodShear (geology)Wave propagationLossless compressionPhysicsAcoustic radiation forceAcousticsComputer scienceMechanicsOpticsMaterials scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many approaches to elastography incorporate shear waves; in some systems these are produced by acoustic radiation force (ARF) push pulses. Understanding the shape and decay of propagating shear waves in lossy tissues is key to obtaining accurate estimates of tissue properties, and so analytical models have been proposed. In this paper, we reconsider a previous analytical model with the goal of obtaining a computationally straightforward and efficient equation for the propagation of shear waves from a focal push pulse. Next, this model is compared with an experimental optical coherence tomography (OCT) system and with finite element models, in two viscoelastic materials that mimic tissue. We find that the three different cases-analytical model, finite element model, and experimental results-demonstrate reasonable agreement within the subtle differences present in their respective conditions. These results support the use of an efficient form of the Hankel transform for both lossless (elastic) and lossy (viscoelastic) media, and for both short (impulsive) and longer (extended) push pulses that can model a range of experimental conditions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207