MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390986480 · doi:10.1007/s10439-023-03433-5

Non-Fourier Bioheat Transfer Analysis in Brain Tissue During Interstitial Laser Ablation: Analysis of Multiple Influential Factors

2024· article· en· W4390986480 on OpenAlexafffund
Sundeep Singh, Leonardo Bianchi, Sanzhar Korganbayev, Pouya Namakshenas, Roderick Melnik, Paola Saccomandi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Biomedical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolitecnico di MilanoFondazione CariploCMC Microsystems
KeywordsAblationBioheat transferFourier transformFourier analysisLaserLaser ablationBrain tissueMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringMechanicsPhysicsOpticsMedicineMathematicsHeat transferMathematical analysisCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents the dual-phase lag-based non-Fourier bioheat transfer model of brain tissue subjected to interstitial laser ablation. The finite element method has been utilized to predict the brain tissue's temperature distributions and ablation volumes. A sensitivity analysis has been conducted to quantify the effect of variations in the input laser power, treatment time, laser fiber diameter, laser wavelength, and non-Fourier phase lags. Notably, in this work, the temperature-dependent thermal properties of brain tissue have been considered. The developed model has been validated by comparing the temperature obtained from the numerical and ex vivo brain tissue during interstitial laser ablation. The ex vivo brain model has been further extended to in vivo settings by incorporating the blood perfusion effects. The results of the systematic analysis highlight the importance of considering temperature-dependent thermal properties of the brain tissue, non-Fourier behavior, and microvascular perfusion effects in the computational models for accurate predictions of the treatment outcomes during interstitial laser ablation, thereby minimizing the damage to surrounding healthy tissue. The developed model and parametric analysis reported in this study would assist in a more accurate and precise prediction of the temperature distribution, thus allowing to optimize the thermal dosage during laser therapy in the brain.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Biomedical EngineeringSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207