MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918709584 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2018.8580187

High Frame Rate Vector Flow Imaging: Development as a New Diagnostic Mode on a Clinical Scanner

2018· article· en· W2918709584 on OpenAlexaff
Yigang Du, Yingying Shen, Billy Y. S. Yiu, Alfred C. H. Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHfr cellScannerImaging phantomVector flowVolumetric flow rateTurbulenceFrame rateFlow (mathematics)Flow velocityVolume (thermodynamics)PhysicsComputer scienceOpticsComputer visionMechanicsImage (mathematics)Chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, development of high frame rate vector flow imaging (HFR-VFI) on a clinical scanner is presented. Four tough problems encountered during the development, in terms of (i) parallel calculation and streamline working process, (ii) data handling, (iii) image quality assurance for real clinical use, and (iv) high frame rate dynamic display, have been demonstrated with corresponding solutions. The quantitative measurements based on the HFR-VFI, including velocity related parameters, flow turbulence quantification, volume flow and wall shear stress have been introduced and many examples of them are shown as well. Velocity and volume flow are measured by the implemented HFR-VFI and conventional PW with angle corrections using a moving string phantom and a Doppler flow phantom, respectively. The implemented HFR-VFI on the clinical scanner, named as V Flow, gives better agreement in accuracy studies of velocity and volume flow than the conventional PW.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207