Quantitative Blood Flow Measurements in the Common Carotid Artery: A Comparative Study of High-Frame-Rate Ultrasound Vector Flow Imaging, Pulsed Wave Doppler, and Phase Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
V Flow is commercially developed by high-frame-rate ultrasound vector flow imaging. Compared to conventional color Doppler, V Flow is angle-independent and is capable of measuring both the magnitude and the direction of blood flow velocities. This paper aims to investigate the differences between V Flow and pulsed wave Doppler (PW) relative to phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI), for the quantitative measurements of blood flow in common carotid arteries (CCA) and, consequently, to evaluate the accuracy of the new technique, V Flow. Sixty-four CCAs were measured using V Flow, PW, and PC-MRI. The maximum velocities, time-averaged mean (TAMEAN) velocities, and volume flow were measured using different imaging technologies. The mean error with standard deviation (Std), the median of absolute errors, and the r-values between V Flow and PC-MRI results for the maximum velocity, the TAMEAN velocity, and the volume flow measurements are {9.40% ± 14.91%; 11.84%; 0.84}, {21.52% ± 14.46%; 19.28%; 0.86}, and {-2.80% ± 14.01%; 10.38%; 0.7}, respectively, and are {53.44% ± 29.68%; 49.79%; 0.74}, {27.83% ± 31.60%; 23.83; 0.71}, and {21.01% ± 29.64%; 25.48%; 0.34}, respectively, for those between PW and PC-MRI. The boxplot, linear regression and Bland-Altman plots were performed for each comparison, which illustrated that the results measured via V Flow rather than via PW agreed more closely with those measured via PC-MRI.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it