MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400285765 · doi:10.1121/10.0027672

Simulation of high frame rate spread-spectrum color Doppler imaging of pulsatile flow

2024· article· en· W4400285765 on OpenAlexaff
Kian Esmailian, James C. Lacefield

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsatile flowDoppler effectFrame (networking)Frame rateComputer scienceSpectrum (functional analysis)AcousticsCardiologyPhysicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spread-spectrum Doppler, a method introduced by our lab, preserves the maximum unaliased velocity of ultrafast Doppler while retaining some of the image quality benefits of compounding plane waves transmitted at different angles. The technique employs a sequence of pulses transmitted at M angles that are repeated L times in different random orders. Shuffling the slow-time samples so the angles repeat in the ascending order concentrates echoes from stationary off-focus targets in M harmonic frequency bins while spreading the in-focus signal across all frequencies. Off-focus echoes are suppressed, without compounding, by applying a notching comb filter, while the portion of the in-focus signal spread to the other (L − 1)M bins is retained for velocity estimation. Field II simulations were used to assess the method’s ability to track pulsatile velocity fluctuations in a straight vessel. The angle-corrected peak velocity was accurate to within ±10% of the true value when imaging at a Doppler frame rate of approximately 115 frames per cardiac cycle. Further improvement of the method will require a filter to attenuate off-focus echoes from non-stationary tissue.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows→French-language works237,207→