MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404130201 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad8fed

Ex vivo validation of non-invasive phase correction for transspine focused ultrasound: model performance and target feasibility

2024· article· en· W4404130201 on OpenAlexafffund
Rui Xu, Meaghan A. O’Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsTerry Fox Research InstituteCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsEx vivoPhase (matter)UltrasoundBiomedical engineeringMedical physicsComputer scienceIn vivoMedicineRadiologyChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. To evaluate the feasibility of transspine focused ultrasound using simulation-based phase corrections from a CT-derived ray acoustics model. Approach. Bilateral transspine focusing was performed in ex vivo human vertebrae with a spine-specific ultrasound array. Ray acoustics-derived phase correction was compared to geometric focusing and a hydrophone-corrected gold standard. Planar hydrophone scans were recorded in the spinal canal and three metrics were calculated: target pressure, coronal and sagittal focal shift, and coronal and sagittal Sørensen–Dice similarity to the free-field. Post hoc analysis was performed in silico to assess the impact of windows between vertebrae on focal shift. Main results. Hydrophone correction reduced mean sagittal plane shift from 1.74 ± 0.82 mm to 1.40 ± 0.82 mm and mean coronal plane shift from 1.07 ± 0.63 mm to 0.54 ± 0.49 mm. Ray acoustics correction reduced mean sagittal plane and coronal plane shift to 1.63 ± 0.83 mm and 0.83 ± 0.60 mm, respectively. Hydrophone correction increased mean sagittal similarity from 0.48 ± 0.22 to 0.68 ± 0.19 and mean coronal similarity from 0.48 ± 0.23 to 0.70 ± 0.19. Ray acoustics correction increased mean sagittal and coronal similarity to 0.53 ± 0.25 and 0.55 ± 0.26, respectively. Target pressure was relatively unchanged across beamforming methods. In silico analysis found that, for some targets, unoccluded paths may have increased focal shift. Significance. Gold standard phase correction significantly reduced coronal shift and significantly increased sagittal and coronal Sørensen–Dice similarity (p < 0.05). Ray acoustics-derived phase correction reduced sagittal and coronal shift and increased sagittal and coronal similarity but did not achieve statistical significance. Across beamforming methods, mean focal shift was comparable to MRI resolution, suggesting that transspine focusing is possible with minimal correction in favourable targets. Future work will explore the mitigation of acoustic windows with anti-focus control points.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207