Assessment of left ventricle phantom wall compressibility by ultrasound and computed tomography methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work concerns the sonographic model of the left ventricle (LV) examined in the Computed Tomography (CT) environment and compare radial strain calculations obtained by two different techniques: the speckle tracking ultrasonography and the Multislices Computed Tomography (MSCT). The Left Ventricular (LF) phantom was fabricate from 10% solution of the poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA). Our model of the LV was driven by the computer-controlled hydraulic piston Super-Pump (Vivitro Inc., Canada) with adjustable fluid volumes. The stroke volume was set at of 24ml. The fluid pressure was changed within range of 0-60 mmHg, and the pulse rate was of 60 cycles/per minute. The relationships between computer controlled left ventricular wall deformations and its visualizations of the echocardiographic and CT imaging, both in the normal and pathological conditions were examined. The difference of assessment the Radial Strain between two methods was not exceeding 1.1%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".