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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".