MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016046899 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ab872b

Evaluation of inverse methods for estimation of mechanical parameters in solid tumors

2020· article· en· W3016046899 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjugate gradient methodParticle swarm optimizationInverseEstimation theoryConvergence (economics)AlgorithmInverse problemMathematical optimizationNoise (video)MathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To treat cancer, knowledge of mechanical parameters can be essential. This study proposes a new approach for estimating hydraulic conductivity (k) and hydraulic conductivity ratio (α) of a living tissue, based on inverse methods, allowing tissue parameter estimation using only a limited set of measurements. First, two population-based algorithms (Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) method and conjugate gradient (CG) method) and two gradient-based algorithms (genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm) are considered, and a comparative study between these different inverse methods is performed to determine which methods have a good performance in terms of convergence rate and stability. CG method is shown to perform well in the case of noise-free input data; however, in the case of noisy input data, it fails to converge. The other three methods (LM, GA, and PSO) converge with estimation errors <10% in both noise-free and noisy input data, suggesting their utility to tackle this problem. In the second part, the effectiveness and good accuracy of these robust algorithms (LM, GA, and PSO) are validated with experimental results. The hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic conductivity ratio of a specific living tumor tissue are then estimated for mammary adenocarcinoma (R3230AC). Moreover, assuming measurement of only one-point interstitial pressure inside the tumor, the effect of the location of this one-point on estimation accuracy of hydraulic conductivity is investigated. We show that estimation errors for points measured near the surface and center of the tumor are greater than at other points.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.308 · 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