MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404860377 · doi:10.1186/s12880-024-01495-y

Using ultrafast angio planewave ultrasensitive and conventional doppler imaging techniques to assess intramuscular blood perfusion in older adults

2024· article· en· W4404860377 on OpenAlexaff
Tiev Miller, Nonhlanhla Chambara, Michael Ying, Marco Y.C. Pang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Imaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsMedicineBlood flowVascularityUltrasoundPerfusionPerfusion scanningNuclear medicineColor dopplerBicepsUltrasonographyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Microvascular ultrasound imaging techniques such as Angio PLanewave UltraSensitive (Angio-PL.U.S.) have been used to detect microvascular blood flow in various organs and tissues. However, the advantage of Angio-PL.U.S. for assessing muscle microvascularity over other non-invasive imaging modalities has not been investigated. This cross-sectional study compared ultrafast Angio-PL.U.S. and conventional color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) techniques for assessing intramuscular blood perfusion. METHODS: Forty-five older adults participated (age = 59.1 ± 7.6). The vascularity index (VI) was used to quantify intramuscular blood flow of the bilateral biceps brachii (BB) and medial gastrocnemius (MG). Intra-limb (difference in VI between CDFI and Angio-PL.U.S. techniques) and inter-limb differences [percent side-to-side differences (%SSD) in VI between dominant and non-dominant sides] were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Associations between techniques were assessed using Spearman's rho (ρ). RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between dominant and non-dominant BB (p ≥ 0.053) and MG (p ≥ 0.756) for both CDFI-VI and Angio-PL.U.S.-VI. Only VI measures for the non-dominant BB demonstrated significant intra-limb difference between techniques (p = 0.002). A significant %SSD between techniques was observed for BB (p = 0.022) but not MG (p = 0.225). Strong to very strong correlations were observed between CDFI-VI and Angio-PL.U.S.-VI across all muscles (ρ = 0.616-0.814, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ultrafast Angio-PL.U.S. and conventional ultrasound imaging techniques were comparable when used in conjunction with the VI for quantifying resting intramuscular blood flow. Angio-PL.U.S. appeared to be more sensitive in detecting bilateral disparities in upper extremity muscles. However, further research is needed to validate these findings and investigate the potential clinical utility of this technique for characterizing disease progression in populations with global or unilateral musculoskeletal tissue alterations.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical ImagingSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207