MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306660172 · doi:10.32920/21290997.v1

Acoustic and photoacoustic characterization of micron-sized perfluorocarbon emulsions

2022· preprint· en· W4306660172 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric M. Strohm, Ivan Gorelikov, Naomi Matsuura, Michael C. Kolios

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreToronto Metropolitan University
FundersTerry Fox FoundationOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicinePhotoacoustic effectMaterials scienceVaporizationUltrasonic sensorLaserCharacterization (materials science)OpticsNanoparticleUltrasoundPhotoacoustic spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyChemistryAcousticsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p> Perfluorocarbon droplets containing nanoparticles (NPs) have recently been investigated as theranostic and dual-mode contrast agents. These droplets can be vaporized via laser irradiation or used as photoacoustic contrast agents below the vaporization threshold. This study investigates the photoacoustic mechanism of NP-loaded droplets using photoacoustic frequencies between 100 and 1000 MHz, where distinct spectral features are observed that are related to the droplet composition. The measured photoacoustic spectrum from NP-loaded perfluorocarbon droplets was compared to a theoretical model that assumes a homogenous liquid. Good agreement in the location of the spectral features was observed, which suggests the NPs act primarily as optical absorbers to induce thermal expansion of the droplet as a single homogenous object. The NP size and composition do not affect the photoacoustic spectrum; therefore, the photoacoustic signal can be maximized by optimizing the NP optical absorbing properties. To confirm the theoretical parameters in the model, photoacoustic, ultrasonic, and optical methods were used to estimate the droplet diameter. Photoacoustic and ultrasonic methods agreed to within 1.4%, while the optical measurement was 8.5% higher; this difference decreased with increasing droplet size. The small discrepancy may be attributed to the difficulty in observing the small droplets through the partially translucent phantom. </p>

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207