MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

SAW Motion Artifact Correction Using Bone Echoes in Wearable Ultrasound Shear-Wave Elastometry

2025· article· W4415366688 on OpenAlexaff
Shane Steinberg, Yuu Ono, Sreeraman Rajan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasoundTransducerBicepsArtifact (error)Wearable computerEcho (communications protocol)Motion (physics)Ultrasonic sensor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring muscle mechanical properties is important for assessing neuromuscular function in health, rehabilitation, and human-machine interfacing. Wearable ultrasound shear-wave elastometry (wUS-SWEM) enables continuous monitoring of muscle mechanical properties during contraction or movements by measuring shear-wave velocity (SWV). However, the skin-mounted actuator not only generates shear waves (SWs) in the target muscle but also excites surface acoustic waves (SAWs) that cause motion of the ultrasound transducer assembly, biasing SWV measurements. In this paper, we introduce a bone echo correction (BEC) method that uses echoes from bone underlying the tissue of interest as a stationary reference to detect and remove SAW-induced motion artifacts (SAW-MAs). An in vivo experiment on relaxed human biceps showed that uncorrected SWV was 8.6 ± 1.69 m/s, whereas BEC reduced it to 5.1 ± 1.02 m/s, revealing a mean bias of 3.5 m/s due to SAW-MAs. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of BEC for SAW-MA removal, and its potential to improve quantitative monitoring of muscle mechanical properties using wUS-SWEM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→