MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096165179 · doi:10.3791/61838

Blood Flow Imaging with Ultrafast Doppler

2020· article· en· W3096165179 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Baranger, Luc Mertens, Olivier Villemain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood flowDoppler effectSIGNAL (programming language)Biomedical engineeringComputer scienceImaging phantomPhotoacoustic Doppler effectAcousticsUltrasoundFlow (mathematics)Ultrashort pulseOpticsPhysicsComputer visionLaserMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pulsed-Doppler effect is the main technique used in clinical echography to assess blood flow. Applied with conventional focused ultrasound Doppler modes, it has several limits. Firstly, a finely tuned signal filtering operation is needed to distinguish blood flows from surrounding moving tissues. Secondly, the operator must choose between localizing the blood flows or quantifying them. In the last two decades, ultrasound imaging has undergone a paradigm shift with the emergence of ultrafast ultrasound using unfocused waves. In addition to a hundredfold increase in framerate (up to 10000 Hz), this new technique also breaks the conventional quantification/localization trade-off, offering a complete blood flow mapping of the field of view and a simultaneous access to fine velocities measurements at the single-pixel level (down to 50 µm). This data continuity in both spatial and temporal dimensions strongly improves the tissue/blood filtering process, which results in an increase sensitivity to small blood flow velocities (down to 1 mm/s). In this method paper, we aim to introduce the concept of ultrafast Doppler as well as its main parameters. Firstly, we summarize the physical principles of unfocused wave imaging. Then, we present the Doppler signal processing main steps. Particularly, we explain the practical implementation of the critical tissue/blood flow separation algorithms and on the extraction of velocities from these filtered data. This theoretical description is supplemented by in vitro experiences. A tissue phantom embedding a canal with flowing blood-mimicking fluid is imaged with a research programmable ultrasound system. A blood flow image is obtained and the flow characteristics are displayed for several pixels in the canal. Finally, a review of in vivo applications is proposed, showing examples in several organs such as carotids, kidney, thyroid, brain and heart.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.403 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207