Shear wave propagation in viscoelastic media: validation of an approximate forward model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".