MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SWAVE 2.0 Imaging of Placental Elasticity and Viscosity: Potential Biomarkers for Placenta-Mediated Disease Detection

2022· article· en· W4297382705 on OpenAlexafffund
Farah Deeba, Ricky Hu, Victoria A. Lessoway, Jefferson Terry, D. Pugash, Jennifer A. Hutcheon, Chantal Mayer, Septimiu E. Salcudean, Robert Rohling

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Medicine & Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBC Children's HospitalMicrosoftSchlumberger Foundation
KeywordsPlacentaElastographyElasticity (physics)Biomedical engineeringMedicineObstetricsPregnancyMaterials scienceUltrasoundBiologyRadiologyFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia (PE) and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are associated with structural and functional changes in the placenta. Different elastography techniques with an ability to assess the mechanical properties of tissue can identify and monitor the pathological state of the placenta. Currently available elastography techniques have been used with promising results to detect placenta abnormalities; however, limitations include inadequate measurement depth and safety concerns from high negative pressure pulses. Previously, we described a shear wave absolute vibro-elastography (SWAVE) method by applying external low-frequency mechanical vibrations to generate shear waves and studied 61 post-delivery clinically normal placentas to explore the feasibility of SWAVE for placental assessment and establish a measurement baseline. This next phase of the study, namely, SWAVE 2.0, improves the previous system and elasticity reconstruction by incorporating a multi-frequency acquisition system and using a 3-D local frequency estimation (LFE) method. Compared with its 2-D counterpart, the proposed system using 3-D LFE was found to reduce the bias and variance in elasticity measurements in tissue-mimicking phantoms. In the aim of investigating the potential of improved SWAVE 2.0 measurements to identify placental abnormalities, we studied 46 post-delivery placentas, including 26 diseased (16 IUGR and 10 PE) and 20 normal control placentas. By use of a 3.33-MHz motorized curved-array transducer, multi-frequency (80,100 and 120 Hz) elasticity measures were obtained with 3-D LFE, and both IUGR (15.30 ± 2.96 kPa, p = 3.35 e –5 ) and PE (12.33 ± 4.88 kPa, p = 0.017) placentas were found to be significantly stiffer compared with the control placentas (8.32 ± 3.67 kPa). A linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifier was able to classify between healthy and diseased placentas with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 87%, 78% and 83% and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.8–0.99). Further, the pregnancy outcome in terms of neonatal intensive care unit admission was predicted with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 70%, 71%, 71%, respectively, and area under the receiver operating curve of 0.78 (confidence interval: 0.62–0.93). A viscoelastic characterization of placentas using a fractional rheological model revealed that the viscosity measures in terms of viscosity parameter n were significantly higher in IUGR (2.3 ± 0.21) and PE (2.11 ± 0.52) placentas than in normal placentas (1.45 ± 0.65). This work illustrates the potential relevance of elasticity and viscosity imaging using SWAVE 2.0 as a non-invasive technology for detection of placental abnormalities and the prediction of pregnancy outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Medicine & BiologySame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207