- ベストアンサー
医学の英文の訳
医学の英文を訳していますが、難しすぎて悩んでいます。 どなたか手伝ってもらえますか？ とりあえず英語の内容の方ですが、以下のような題名についてのことです。 Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Segmentation Algorithms for the Identification of Luminal and Medial-Adventitial Borders in Intravascular Ultrasound Images. ALC の英次郎で単語を調べたんですが、文章が作れませんでした。 どうかよろしくお願いします。
- yaho
- お礼率64% (116/179)
- 英語
- 回答数5
- ありがとう数6
- みんなの回答 （5）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
「血管内超音波画像中の管腔／外膜内側境界を識別するための３次元セグメンテーション・アルゴリズムの評価」 超音波を使って撮像した画像の中で、どこが血管部分かということをはっきりと見分けられるように、血管とその外膜との境い目をコンピュータで識別する、という話ではないでしょうか。 セグメンテーション（←分割、区分）アルゴリズムを使って、血管部分とその他の部分とにグループ分けするのだと思います。 題名だけでは苦しいですが…。もう少し調べてみたいと思います。
その他の回答 (4)
MiJunです。 略語辞典によると、 「percutaneous transluminal angioplasty ：経皮的血管形成術 」 という例があります。 従って、 -------------------------------- 血管内超音波画像による血管と内外膜境界の判定における３次元分断アルゴリズムの評価 ------------------------------- 蛇足ですが、以下の参考URLサイトは参考になりますでしょうか? 「超音波リングアレイプローブによる血管内狭窄部の厚み計測 」 ご参考まで。
お礼
超音波のサイトは大変ありがたいです。 ありがとうございます。
MiJunです。 Originalは以下の参考URLサイトでしょうか？ 補足お願いします。
お礼
教えていただいたサイトとは少し違うんですが、 また必要になるかもしれません。 ありがとうございました。
自信はありませんが、 ・・・Luminal and Medial-・・・の部分は「and」ではなく、「of」ではないでしょうか？ --------------------------- 血管内超音波（イメージ）法による内外膜境界の蛍光（発光）の同定のための３次元分断アルゴリズムの評価 ------------------------------------ あるいはLuminal」が細胞の一部で、内外膜の近傍の組織を指す言葉であれば、 ----------------------------------- 血管内超音波（イメージ）法によるルミナールと内外膜境界の同定のための３次元分断アルゴリズムの評価 ----------------------------------- でしょうか？ ご参考まで。
- baian
- ベストアンサー率39% (276/696)
専門外なのですが、http://www.kotoba.ne.jp/の医学カテゴリの辞書を使ってみては？ http://lsd.pharm.kyoto-u.ac.jp/lookup-j. htmlhttp://apollo.m.ehime-u.ac.jp/GHDNet/98/eiwa.html などなど、色々専門ごとに辞書が載ってるので…
お礼
いろいろ教えていただいたありがとうございました。
関連するQ&A
- URLを教えて下さい。
以下の文献が載っているサイトを教えて下さい。 文献名 Computerizd Med. Imag. and Graphics 研究名(題名) Three-dimensional segmentation of luminal and adventitial borders in serial intravascular ultrasound images. vol.23 , pp.299-309 , 1999年 著者名 R.Shekhar , R.M.Cothren , D.G.Vince , S.Chandra J.D.Thomas , J.F.Cornhill 文献名 CVGIP:Image Understanding 研究名(題名) A fast algorithｍ for active contours and curvature estimation vol.55 , pp.14-26 , 1992年 (注)文献名は、略している個所もあります。 例：Med - Medical? Imag - Image? CVGIP - わかりません 以上のページには、英語で論文が書かれています。 その内容が知りたいので、その内容が載っているURLを教えてください。 yahoo や goo で調べたんですがどうもだめでした。
- ベストアンサー
- その他（インターネット・Webサービス）
- 英文の訳を教えて！
以下の英文の訳を教えてください。 医学のことです。 -------------------------------------------------------------- 生体内データ Three motorized pullbacks in coronary arteries, one left circumflex(LCX) artery and two left anterior descending(LAD)arteries, were performed with a 40MHz Boston Scientific Discovery IVUS imaging catheter(Boston Scientific , San Jose , CA) using an automated pullback device set at 0.5 mm/s. IVUS = Intravascular ultrasound ------------------------------------------------------------------ 生体外データ Vessels from subjects who had undergone previous intervential procedures or vessels that were totally occluded or so heavily diseased as to preclude introduction of the IVUS catheter were excluded.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の訳
長い英文ですが、どなたか訳してもらえないでしょうか？ Many articles and books describe new methods and tools that may make your organization or project more productive and your products better and cheaper. But it is difficult to separate the claims from the reality. Many organizations perform experiments, run case studies or administer surveys to help them decide whether a method or tool is likely to make a positive difference in their particular situations. These investigations cannot be done without careful, controlled measurement and analysis. As we will see in Chapter 4, an evaluation’s success depends on good experimental design, proper identification of the factors likely to affect the outcome, and appropriate measurement of factor attributes.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
As mentioned above, there are two peaks in R(e,i) in the e-i diagram: one is at e≒1 (i<1) and the other at i≒3 (e<0.1). The former corresponds directly to the peak in R(e,0) at e≒1 found in the two-dimensional case. The latter is due to the peculiar nature to the three-dimensional case, as understood in the following way. Let us introduce r_min (i, b,ω) in the case of e=0, which is the minimum distance during encounter between the protoplanet and a planetesimal with orbital elements i, b, and ω. In Fig. 16, r_min(i,b)=min_ω{r_min(i,b,ω)} is plotted as a function of b for various i, where r_min<r_p (=0.005) means “collision”; there are two main collision bands at b≒2.1 and 2.4 for i=0. For i≦2, these bands still exist, shifting slightly to small b. This shift is because a planetesimal feels less gravitational attracting force of the protoplanet as i increases. As i increases further, the bands approach each other, and finally coalesce into one large collision band at i≒3.0; this large band vanish when i≧4. In this way, the peculiar orbital behavior of three-body problem makes the peak at i≒3 (e<0.1). Though there are the peaks in R(e,i), the peak values are not so large: at most it is as large as 5. This shows that the collisional rate is well described by that of the two-body approximation <P(e,i)>_2B except for in the vicinity of v, i→0 if we neglect a difference of a factor of 5. Now we propose a modified form of <P(e,i)>_2B which well approximates the calculated collisional rate even in the limit of v, i→0. We find in Fig.14 that <P(e,i)> is almost independent of i, i.e., it behaves two-dimensionally for i≦{0.1 (when e≦0.2), {0.02/e (when e≧0.2). (35) This transition from three-dimensional behavior to two-dimensional behavior comes from the fact that the isotropy of direction of incident particles breaks down for the case of very small i (the expression <P(e,i)>_2B given by Eq. (29) assumes the isotropy). In other words, as an order of magnitude, the scale height of planetesimals becomes smaller than the gravitational radius r_G=σ_2D/2 (σ_2D given by Eq. (3)) and the number density of planetesimals cannot be uniform within a slab with a thickness σ_2D for small i. Table 4. Numbers of three-dimensional collision events found by orbital calculations for the representative sets of e and i. In the table r_p is the radius of the protoplanet. Table 5. The three-dimensional collision rate <P(e,i)> for the case of r_p=0.005 (r_p being the protoplanetary radius), together with two-dimensional <P(e,i=0)> Fig. 14. Contours of the evaluated <P(e,i)>, drawn in terms of log_10<P(e,i)> Fig. 15. Contours of the enhancement factor R(e,i) Table 4.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=1484661557.jpg Table 5.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=6760884829.jpg Fig. 14. ＆Fig. 15.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=8798441290.jpg 長文になりますが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- どなたかこの英文を日本語訳してください><
どなたかこの英文を日本語訳してください>< Wolfram Mathematica The first was Mathematica—the system in which all of Wolfram|Alpha is implemented. Mathematica has three crucial roles in Wolfram|Alpha. First, its very general symbolic language provides the framework in which all the diverse knowledge of Wolfram|Alpha is represented and all its capabilities are implemented. Second, Mathematica's vast web of built-in algorithms provides the computational foundation that makes it even conceivably practical to implement the methods and models of so many fields. And finally, the strength of Mathematica as a software engineering and deployment platform makes it possible to take the technical achievements of Wolfram|Alpha and deliver them broadly and robustly 英語の説明書の一部なのですが、良くわかりません＞＜ わかる方いらっしゃいましたら、翻訳をお願いします><
- 締切済み
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
The numbers of collision orbits found in the present calculations are shown in Table 4 for the representative sets of (e,i). From these numbers we can expect the magnitude of statistical error in the evaluation of <P(e,i)> to be a few percent for small e, i and within 10% for large e, i for r_p=0.005 are shown in Table 5, together with those of the two-dimensional case. Interpolating these values, we have obtained the contour of <P(e,i)> and R(e,i) on the e-I plane. They are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. From Fig. 15 we can read out the general properties of the collisional rate in the three-dimensional case: (i) <P(e,i)> is enhanced over <P(e,i)>_2B except for small e and i, (ii) <P(e,i)> reduces to <P(e,i)>_2B for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4, and (iii) there are two peaks in R(e,i) near regions where e≒1 (i<1) and where i≒3 (e<0.1): the peak value is at most as large as 5. In the vicinity of small v(=(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)) and i, R(e,i) rapidly reduces to zero. This is due to a singularity of <P(e,i)>_2B at v=0 and i=0 in the ordinary expression given by Eq. (29) and hence unphysical; the behavior of collisional rate in the vicinity of small v and i will be discussed in detail later. Thus, we are able to assert, more strongly, the property (i) mentioned in the last paragraph: that is, solar gravity always enhances the collisional rate over that of the two-body approximation. One of the remarkable features of R(e,i) found in Fig. 15 is the property (ii). That is, the collisional rate between Keplerian particles is well described by the two-body approximation, for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4. This is corresponding to the two-dimensional result that R(e,0)≒1 for e≧4. よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
In Fig.13, we compare our results with those of Nishiida (1983) and Wetherill and Cox (1985). Nishida studied the collision probability in the two-dimensional problem for the two cases: e=0 and 4. For the case of e=0, his result (renormalized so as to coincide with our present definition) agrees accurately with ours. But for e=4, his collisional rate is about 1.5 times as large as ours; it seems that the discrepancy comes from the fact that he did not try to compute a sufficient number of orbits for e=4, thus introducing a relatively large statistical error. The results of Wetherill and Cox are summarized in terms of v/v_e where v is the relative velocity at infinity and v_e the escape velocity from the protoplanet, while our results are in terms of e and i. Therefore we cannot compare our results exactly with theirs. If we adopt Eq. (2) as the relative velocity, we have (of course, i=0 in this case) (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≒34(ρ/3gcm^-3)^(1/6)(a_0*/1AU)^(1/2)(v/v_e). (34) According to Eq. (34), their results are rediscribed in Fig.13. From this figure it follows that their results almost coincide with ours within a statistical uncertainty of their evaluation. 7. The collisional rate for the three-dimensional case Now, we take up a general case where i≠0. In this case, we selected 67 sets of (e,i), covering regions of 0.01≦i≦4 and 0≦e≦4 in the e-i diagram, and calculated a number of orbits with various b, τ,and ω for each set of (e,i). We evaluated R(e,i) for r_p=0.001 and 0.005 (for r_p=0.0002 we have not obtained a sufficient number of collision orbits), and found again its weak dependence on r_p (except for singular points, e.g., (e,i)=(0,3.0)) for such values of r_p. Hence almost all results of calculations will be presented for r_p=0.005 (i.e., at the Earth orbit) here. Fig.13. Comparison of the two-dimensional enhancement factor R(e,0) with those of Nishida (1983) and those of Wetherill and Cox (1985).Their results are renormalized so as to coincide with our definition of R(e,0). 長文ですが、よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
Finally, we will add a comment on comparison of our result with those of Wetherill and Cox (1985). Wetherill and Cox examined three-dimensional calculation for a swarm of planetesimals with a special distribution, i.e., e_2 has one value and i_2 is distributed randomly between 0.3e_2 and 0.7e_2 (<i_2>=e_2/2) while e_1=i_1=0, which corresponds, in our notation of Eq. (9), to <n_2>={n_sδ(e_2-e)δ(i_2-i)/0.4π^2e(2/2) for 0.3e_2<i_2<0.7e_2, {0 otherwise. (38) Integrating <P(e,i)> with above <n_2> according to Eq. (9), we compare our results with theirs. Figure 18 shows that their results almost agree with ours (the slight quantitative difference may come from the difference in definition of the enhancement factor); but their results contain a large statistical uncertainty because they calculated only 10~35 collision orbits for each set of e and i while 100~6000 collision orbits were found in our calculation (see Table 4). Furthermore, our results are more general than theirs in the sense that their calculations are restricted to the special distribution of planetesimals as mentioned above, while the collisional rate for an arbitrary planetesimal distribution can be deduced from our results. 8. Concluding remarks Based on the efficient numerical procedures to find collision orbits developed in Sect. 2 to 4, we have evaluated numerically the collisional rate defined by Eq. (10). The results are summarized as follows: (i) the collisional rate <P(e,i)> is like that in the two-dimensional case for i≦0.1 (when e≦0.2) and i≦0.02/e (when e≧0.2), (ii) except for such two-dimensional region, <P(e,i)> is always enhanced by the solar gravity, (iii) <P(e,i)> reduces to <P(e,i)>_2B for (e^2+i^2)^(1/2)≧4, where <P(e,i)>_2B is the collisional rate in the two-body approximation, and (iv) there are two notable peaks in <P(e,i)>/<P(e,i)>_2B at e≒1 (i<1) and i≒3 (e<0.1); but the peak value is at most 4 to 5. From the present numerical evaluation of <P(e,i)>, we have also found an approximate formula for <P(e,i)>, which can reproduce <P(e,i)> within a factor 5 but cannot express the peaks found at e≒1 (i<1) and i≒3 (e<0.1). These peaks are characteristic to the three-body problem. They are very important for the study of planetary growth, since they are closely related to the runaway growth of the protoplanet, as discussed by Wetherill and Cox (1985). This will be considered in the next paper (Ohtsuki and Ida, 1989), based on the results obtained in the present paper. Acknowledgements. Numerical calculations were made by HITAC M-680 of the Computer Center of the University of Tokyo. This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area (Nos. 62611006 and 63611006) of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan. Fig. 18. Comparison of the enhancement factors with those of Wetherill and Cox (1985). The error bars in their results arise from a small number (10~35) of collision orbits which they found for each e. Our results are averaged by the distribution function which they used (see text). Fig. 18.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=0990654048.jpg かなりの長文になりますが、どうかよろしくお願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- この英文の和訳をお願いします。
To avoid this difficulty, we consider the scale height to be (i+αr_G) rather than i, where α is a numerical factor; α must have a value of the order of 10 to be consistent with Eq. (35). For the requirements that in the limit of i=0, <P(e,i)>_2B has to naturally tend to <P(e,0)>_2B given by Eq. (28), we put the modified collisional rate in the two-body approximation to be <P(e,i)>_2B=Cπr_p^2{1+6/(r_p(e^2+i^2))}(e^2+i^2)^(1/2)/(2(i+ατ_G)) (36) with C=((2/π)^2){E(k)(1-x)+2αE(√(3/4))x}, (37) where x is a variable which reduces to zero for i>>αr_G and to unity for i<<αr_G. The above equation reduces to Eq. (29) when i>>αr_G while it tends to the expression of the two-dimensional case (28) for i<<αr_G. Taking α to be 10 and x to be exp(-i/(αr_G)), <P(e,i)> scaled by Eq. (36) is shown in Fig. 17. Indeed, the modified <P(e,i)>_2B approximates <P(e,i)> within a factor of 5 in whole regions of the e-I plane, especially it is exact in the high energy limit (v→∞). However, two peaks remain at e≒1 and i≒3, which are closely related to the peculiar features of the three-body problem and hence cannot be reproduced by Eq. (36). Fig. 16a and b. Behaviors of r_min(i,b): a i=0, b i=2, 2.5, and 3.0. The level of the planetary radius (r_p=0.005) is denoted by a dashed line. Fig. 17. Contours of <P(e,i)> normalized by the modified <P(e,i)>_2B given by Eq. (36). Fig. 16a and b.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=4940423993.jpg Fig. 17.↓ http://www.fastpic.jp/images.php?file=5825412982.jpg よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳が苦手なので，長文の和訳をお願いします。
下の【語句】を参考にして和訳をお願いいたします。 Scientists often need to observe things that cannot be seen with the naked eye, either because they are too small or because they are concealed from view. There is a range of instruments and technologies that can be used to produce images of these small or hidden things. The light microscope, first developed around 1600, uses lenses to produce a magnified image of small objects. In the late 1600s an Englishman, Robert Hooke, used a microscope to examine some cork and observed that it was made up of small units. He called these units “cells”. In 1939 the electron microscope was developed. It creates an image using electrons rather than light, allowing us to observe things that are far too small to be seen with a light microscope. “Scanning” electron microscopes, which produce three-dimensional images, were developed in the 1960s. Other technologies, such as X-rays and ultrasound, produce images of the insides of objects. Like many scientific discoveries, the discovery of X-rays was an accident. In 1895 German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen, was experimenting with electrons in vacuum tubes. He noticed that this caused a fluorescent screen in another part of the laboratory to glow. When he put his hand between the tube and the screen, he saw the outlines of his bones projected onto the screen. He didn’t know what kind of radiation was causing this, so he used the term “X-rays”, because in science “X” represents an unknown. Atoms of heavier elements absorb X-rays whereas atoms of lighter elements do not. In the human body, calcium in the bones absorbs X-rays, but soft tissue such as muscle does not. So when X-rays pass through the body they can produce an image of the bones. Too much exposure to X-rays can cause radiation sickness, so X-ray technicians need to take special precautions. CAT（computerized axial tomography） scans use computers and X-rays to produce three-dimensional images. they examine the body “slice-by-slice” in a series of cross-sections, producing precise images. They are valuable in diagnosing diseased like cancer. Very high frequency sound waves are called “ultrasonic waves”. We can’t hear them, but bats and dolphins can. They send out ultrasonic signals and can tell from any echo whether something is ahead of them and how far away it is. Special spectacles using ultrasound have been made for blind people. Ultrasonic waves are used to detect tiny cracks in aircraft wings where microscopes can’t be used. And they are widely used in medicine. The waves are reflected from the boundaries between organs in the human body, producing pictures of the inside of the body. Ultrasonic waves are used to study embryos during pregnancy, because they are much safer than X-rays. The ultimate study of small, hidden things is the study of the smallest particles, such as quarks, that make up all matter. This is done with huge machines called “particle accelerators”. Powerful magnets speed up particles to almost the speed of light. The high-speed particles collide with other particles, and the pieces left over from the collisions are studied with special detectors. The pieces can be as small as 10^（-15） meters※ and can’t be seen directly. It seems the smaller the thing being observed, the larger the machine needed. 【語句】 scanning electron microscope 「走査型電子顕微鏡」 Wilhelm Roentgen 「ウィルヘルム・レントゲン（1845-1923）」 radiation sickness 「放射線病」 CAT（computerized axial tomography）scan 「コンピュータ断層X線投影法」 CT scanともいう。 embryo 「胚（はい），胎児」 quark 「クオーク」 particle accelerator 「粒子加速器」 ※10^（-15） meters 「10のマイナス15乗メートル」 1000兆分の1メートル
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
いろいろと内容まで調べていただいて、ありがとうございました。 大変参考になりました。 ちなみに管腔は、'かんこう'と読むんですよね？