MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246975952 · doi:10.14740/jnr322w

A Non-Invasive Detection and Monitoring of Intracranial Pressure Using Ultrasound Sensors

2015· article· en· W4246975952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Derek Kwaku Pobi Asiedu, Kyoung‐Jae Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracranial pressureFilter (signal processing)CourseworkSIGNAL (programming language)MedicineComputer scienceUltrasoundBiomedical engineeringSurgeryComputer visionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) measurement is an extremely important part of the neurosurgical healthcare. Existing methods used for monitoring ICP are mainly grouped into invasive and non-invasive methods. Research into techniques for ICP monitoring is now gearing towards non-invasive methods to eliminate complications associated with invasive methods. The goal of this work was to propose an effective method for ICP monitoring. Method: The work presents a model-based approach for the analysis and characterization of the proposed method. ICP waveforms and characteristics were generated from mathematical models using computer simulation and various datasets. The simulation model of the proposed ultrasound system and biological system were developed. Results: The ICP pulse was achieved with a variance of 63.62 Pa from the reference model used. From our results, a minimum of 10 MHz with a minimum pulse width of 80 µs can be used in the development of proposed system. The cut-off frequencies for the pulse generator filter and mixed signal filter values were 40 MHz and 1 MHz respectively. Conclusion: The present study establishes a reference model for ultrasound system-biological system interaction. The study also proposes a new approach for ICP monitoring. The ICP monitoring approach in this paper has the advantage of being a simple, non-invasive and a direct method for ICP monitoring. The model presented is an effective tool in the field of research, coursework and presentations. The introduced device satisfies both the needs of the patients and that of the health personnel. J Neurol Res. 2015;5(1-2):167-180 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jnr322w

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207