MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996584128 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2019.8925706

Reconstruction of Viscosity Maps in Elastography using Ultrasound Shear Wave Attenuation

2019· article· en· W2996584128 on OpenAlexaff
Manish Bhatt, Marine A.C. Moussu, Boris Chayer, François Destrempes, Marc Gesnik, Louise Allard, An Tang, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance elastographyImaging phantomViscoelasticityAttenuationIn vivoUltrasoundViscosityBiomedical engineeringEx vivoElastographyMaterials scienceLiver tissueMagnetic resonance imagingFatty liverNuclear magnetic resonancePathologyChemistryBiologyNuclear medicineMedicineRadiologyOpticsPhysicsComposite materialEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in viscoelastic properties of biological tissues may be symptomatic of a dysfunction that can be correlated to tissue pathology. Past magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that tumors have higher viscosity than normal tissues, and fatty organs might also correlate with higher viscosity. In this study, a frequency-shift method to compute attenuation was utilized to reconstruct viscosity maps by analyzing spectral properties of induced shear waves. The feasibility of viscosity reconstructions in animal tissue samples is investigated. Experiments were performed in an in vitro phantom, as well as in ex vivo and in vivo animal tissue samples of healthy and fatty livers. Quantitative values of viscosity obtained for two porcine liver tissues, two fatty duck liver samples, and one goose fatty liver imaged in vivo are 0.61 ± 0.21, 0.52 ± 0.35; 1.28 ± 0.54, 1.36 ± 0.73, and 1.67 ± 0.70 Pa.s, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207