Technical Parameters and Feedback Control for Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability Enhancement by Focused Ultrasound
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focused ultrasound combined with intravenously infused microbubbles has been shown to effectively enhance the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, facilitating drug delivery to the brain. A wide range of technical parameters has been evaluated through preclinical studies and clinical trials. Generally, a low frequency between 200 and 300 kHz is preferred for the transcranial approach, while 1 MHz is used in implantable devices. Standard parameters include a burst length of 5 to 10 ms, a pulse repetition frequency of 0.2 to 10 Hz, and sonication durations of 90 to 180 seconds. A pressure magnitude around 0.46 mechanical index appears to be near the threshold for BBB permeability enhancement at standard microbubble dosage without causing hemorrhage. Various microbubble and nanobubble types have been tested at different doses, which in principle can be normalized by gas volume. Control methods that use harmonic emmisions for power feedback have been proposed to enhance consistency and account for patient variability, and these methods are currently being tested in several clinical trials.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it