MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372331227 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-34018-w

Inaccuracies of deterministic finite-element models of human middle ear revealed by stochastic modelling

2023· article· en· W4372331227 on OpenAlexafffund
Arash Ebrahimian, Hossein Mohammadi, John J. Rosowski, Jeffrey Cheng, Nima Maftoon

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsMiddle earFootplateStapesFinite element methodHuman earComputer scienceStochastic modellingAcousticsMathematicsStructural engineeringPhysicsAnatomyEngineeringStatisticsBiologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For over 40 years, finite-element models of the mechanics of the middle ear have been mostly deterministic in nature. Deterministic models do not take into account the effects of inter-individual variabilities on middle-ear parameters. We present a stochastic finite-element model of the human middle ear that uses variability in the model parameters to investigate the uncertainty in the model outputs (umbo, stapes, and tympanic-membrane displacements). We demonstrate: (1) uncertainties in the model parameters can be magnified by more than three times in the umbo and stapes footplate responses at frequencies above 2 kHz; (2) middle-ear models are biased and they distort the output distributions; and (3) with increased frequency, the highly-uncertain regions spatially spread out on the tympanic membrane surface. Our results assert that we should be mindful when using deterministic finite-element middle-ear models for critical tasks such as novel device developments and diagnosis.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSpeech and Audio ProcessingFrench-language works237,207