Single Versus Multi-channel Dispersion Analysis of Ultrasonic Guided Waves Propagating in Long Bones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasonic guided wave techniques have been applied to characterize cortical bone for osteoporosis assessment. Compared with the current gold-standard X-ray-based diagnostic methods, ultrasound-based techniques pose some advantages such as compactness, low cost, lack of ionizing radiation, and their ability to detect the mechanical properties of the cortex. Axial transmission technique with a source-receiver offset is employed to acquire the ultrasound data. The dispersion characteristics of the guided waves in bones are normally analyzed in the transformed domains using the dispersion curves. The transformed domain can be time-frequency map using a single channel or wavenumber-frequency (or phase velocity-frequency) map with multi-channels. In terms of acquisition effort, the first method is more cost- and time-effective than the latter. However, it remains unclear whether single-channel dispersion analysis can provide as much quantitative guided-wave information as the multi-channel analysis. The objective of this study is to compare the two methods using numerically simulated and ex vivo data of a simple bovine bone plate and explore their advantages and disadvantages. Both single- and multi-channel signal processing approaches are implemented using sparsity-constrained optimization algorithms to reinforce the focusing power. While the single-channel data acquisition and processing are much faster than those of the multi-channel, modal identification and analysis of the multi-channel data are straightforward and more convincing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".