MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3099104599 · doi:10.1109/ius46767.2020.9251843

On the influence of external force induced by the ultrasound probe on internal carotid artery elastography features

2020· article· en· W3099104599 on OpenAlexafffund
Boris Chayer, Marie‐Hélène Roy Cardinal, Louise Allard, Noémie Cloutier, Clara Petit, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElastographySonographerUltrasoundBiomedical engineeringCompression (physics)Internal carotid arteryCommon carotid arteryCarotid arteriesMaterials scienceRadiologyMedicineSurgeryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carotid strain imaging aims to quantify the deformation and translation (motion) of the artery wall and plaque. Due to changes in boundary conditions, external manual forces may induce a bias in the estimation of carotid artery mechanical properties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the compression force induced by the ultrasound probe during scanning on measured mechanical properties. Nine volunteers underwent an elastography exam of their left internal carotid artery (LICA) using a custom made force feedback handles that allowed the sonographer to control the pressure applied by the probe on the skin. The force was first recorded during normal scanning, as per operator standard practice (SP). Then, predefined compression (PDC) forces were adjusted with sound feedback to randomly selected values between 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 Newton. Radiofrequency images were acquired and converted to B-mode for automated wall segmentation. Six carotid elastography features were assessed on upper and lower walls. Results indicated that the sonographer under SP scanned with a force of 6.4 ± 1.6 Newton. Statistically significant negative linear regressions were observed between the applied force and every elastography features on the upper wall, and with only the cumulated lateral translation on the lower wall. One way ANOVA showed that some features were significantly different between PDC versus SP. In summary, slightly negative linear influence of the applied pressure on elastography features was observed. The variation of all elastography features as a function of the probe pressure mainly affected upper wall measurements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention→French-language works237,207→