MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402438807 · doi:10.11159/htff24.257

Comparative Analysis of Temperature Fields during cryosurgery: Study using the Porosity-based Bioheat Models and Pennes Model

2024· article· en· W4402438807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hitesh Kumar Gupta, Debabrata Dasgupta, Prabal Talukdar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryosurgeryMaterials scienceBioheat transferPorosityMechanicsComposite materialPhysicsHeat transfer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryosurgery plays a crucial role in cancer treatment by utilizing an advanced and minimally invasive surgical technique with significant potential for efficiently eradicating both carcinoma and non-carcinoma tissues through freezing methods.Optimizing this technique is crucial for minimizing both inadequate ablation and collateral damage to healthy tissue during the procedure.Biological tissues, by virtue of their porous nature, offer a network of interconnected spaces between dispersed cells.This intricate network facilitates the efficient delivery of vital nutrients and minerals throughout the tissue.The current study develops a mathematical model integrate bioheat equations that account for varying porosity and apply Pennes equation with variable perfusion, utilizing an effective heat capacity formulation to Capture the intricate details of the phase transitions during freezing and thawing.The transient temperature distribution, propagation of lethal front, and the resulting ablation size within tissue is investigated within the tissue, focusing on understanding the impact of blood vessel sizes, blood velocities, and porosities.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207