Rapid Prediction of Ablation Zones of Irreversible Electroporation With Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy and Artificial Neural Network in a Heterogeneous Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we combined electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and artificial neural network (ANN) to predict the ablation zone of irreversible electroporation (IRE) in a heterogeneous plant model. The heterogeneous plant model was built by implanting an exotic material with a different electrical conductivity (copper or wood) into potato cubes. For each heterogeneous model, 55 IRE trials were performed with the pulse strength of 300–1300 V and the pulse number of 30, 60, or 90 ($100 \mu \text{s}$in the pulsewidth and the frequency of 1 Hz) for different positions of exotic implants. The ANN for each model was trained, tested, and validated by a total of 165 experimental data with five inputs (pulse strength, pulse number, implant$x$-/$y$-axis values, and impedance variation parameter) and four outputs (ablation area, major axis length (MaAL), minor axis length (MiAL), and ablation boundary in the first quadrant). Both the experiment and simulation results showed that the two implants with different electrical conductivities could distort the electric field distribution in the plant model. This study concludes that the method combining ANN and EIS can be used to predict the ablation zone of heterogeneous IRE with acceptable accuracy ($>$90%), which might bring a hint to the rapid monitoring of IRE in the treatment of tumors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".