MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208753431 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2021.3123912

In Vivo Pulsatility Measurement of Cerebral Microcirculation in Rodents Using Dynamic Ultrasound Localization Microscopy

2021· article· en· W3208753431 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesInstitut TransMedTechInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Foundation for InnovationRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du Quebec
KeywordsMicrocirculationMicrobubblesUltrasoundHemodynamicsIn vivoBlood flowMicroscopyCerebral arteriesPreclinical imagingNeuroimaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increased pulse pressure, due to arteries stiffening with age and cardiovascular disease, may lead to downstream brain damage in microvessels and cognitive decline. Brain-wide imaging of the pulsatility propagation from main feeding arteries to capillaries in small animals could improve our understanding of the link between pulsatility and cognitive decline. However, it requires higher spatiotemporal resolution and penetration depth than currently available with existing brain imaging techniques. Herein, we show the feasibility of performing Dynamic Ultrasound Localization Microscopy (DULM), a novel imaging approach to capture hemodynamics with a subwavelength resolution. By producing cine-loops of flowing microbubbles in 2D in the whole rodent brain lasting several cardiac cycles, DULM performed pulsatility measurements in microvessels in-depth, in vivo, with and without craniotomy. Cortical veins and arteries were shown to have a significatively different pulsatility index and the method was compared against Contrast Enhanced Ultrafast Ultrasound Doppler (CEUFD) pulsatility 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations57
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207