08:30 pm
My External Guide replied to the Inverse Modelling Computer Simulation suggestion mail that I'd sent him. To this, he replied saying:
"I have been thinking. Let us discuss soon Purti.
My apprehensions:
· Getting patient data without initially doing lab tests. How do we convince the ethical committee?
· Interpretation of the data. Can this have any biases ? Who will validate this?"
Well, it seems to me that he still thinks neither have I understood the project, nor him. Can totally notice how vaguely he's mentioned his apprehensions! He's been telling the same thing to me again and again and again. So fed up! How do I explain it to him? Alright, I've gotta be polite, give him the benefit of doubt. May be he's right and I'm not understanding what he's saying. Thus I decide to approach his questions objectively. The only thing I can do now, for him to really understand me, is to compare my way and his way, outright, and then answer his questions. Also, begin the mail with, 'These are my views, correct me if I'm wrong.' Another thing that I have noticed is that, he doesn't read!! So, need to express everything in diagrams, in the form of points, easy and precise language, in short. Well, here we go!
Hello sir,
Would be happy to discuss the concerns raised. Here are my views:
Getting patient data without initially doing lab tests. How do we convince the ethical committee?
=> As the model suggested is derived from the paper, I suggest using the paper as the "Base Paper" and using the same data that is given in the paper. This way, the ethical committee will approve the results for a correctly duplicated model.
Interpretation of the data. Can this have any biases ? Who will validate this?
=> The original interpretation of the Patient Data has also been mentioned in the paper. Thus validating it.
Also the below is my understanding and concerns. Kindly correct me if I'm wrong.
Block Diagram of the System:
Area of concern: Simulation of Flow
Prime aim of simulation: Validating the signal processing involved.
Validation: The simulated condition on flow must match output of signal processing system
Primary suggestion:
i) Emulate the flow in a lab using a setup that it resembles the actual physiological pulsatile flow in an artery.
ii) Apply various physiological scenarios on the model.
Steps:
1) Formulate a initial rough setup
Discussed:
a) Pump and fluid with necessary to create a flow,
b) A pipe to emulate either MCA or UA,
c) Ultrasound doppler flowmeter
2) Check availability of equipment
Discussed:
i) Prof. V. K. Joseph informed that neither GEC-ETC, nor GEC-Mechanical Dept. owns an ultrasound flowmeter;
ii) Checked IIT-B Mechanical Dept. Laboratory facilities online, http://www.me.iitb.ac.in/me/labs.php , it mentions "Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power" Lab, which is supervised by,
a) Mr. Prakash, Sr.Tech.Superintendent)
b) Mr.C.V Jakka(Sr.Mechanic)
c) Mr. Gajendra Kumar(Jr. Tech. Superintendent)
as mentioned on http://www.me.iitb.ac.in/me/staff.php
iii) Must discuss the matter with HOD sir to contact the above mentioned to check for availability and ask for permission to access the equipment if available.
3) Study of requirements and working of equipment for initial set up
Concerns:
Doppler Ultrasound Flowmeter:
a) Does it give an audio output?
b) Does it have an audio output Recording Capability?
Pipe:
a) Size requirement: According to size of artery (UA or MCA)? or according to availability?
b) Does the opted alternative correctly represent the artery? i.e. Flowmeters require straight pipes; arteries are almost never straight. Thus, validity of the model?
Can be ignored for a basic setup.
Fluid Flow:
a) Need Pulsatile flow for Doppler output. No doppler audio output if no pulses.
Variable Scenarios that can be created:
a) Pressure change
b) Velocity change
c) change in the number of particals that reflect sound.
(The above will affect the audio.
What then, is the objective of signal processing system?
To detect the changes in velocity, pressure, no. of particals? Or just that it is not the standard audio?)
4) Design setup and experiment according to the availability.
a) Create a simple pulsatile flow, measure with flowmeter, record audio output<== Standard for comparison.
b) Apply various scenarios, record.
The Effing mail is sent! Don't ever want to look at it again!
No comments:
Post a Comment