Shape Deformation in Two-Dimensional Electrical Impedance Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) uses measurements from surface electrodes to reconstruct an image of the conductivity of the contained medium. However, changes in measurements result from both changes in internal conductivity and changes in the shape of the medium relative to the electrode positions. Failure to account for shape changes results in a conductivity image with significant artifacts. Previous work to address shape changes in EIT has shown that in some cases boundary shape and electrode location can be uniquely determined for isotropic conductivities; however, for geometrically conformal changes, this is not possible. This prior work has shown that the shape change problem can be partially addressed. In this paper, we explore the limits of compensation for boundary movement in EIT using three approaches. First, a theoretical model was developed to separate a deformation vector field into conformal and nonconformal components, from which the reconstruction limits may be determined. Next, finite element models were used to simulate EIT measurements from a domain whose boundary has been deformed. Finally, an experimental phantom was constructed from which boundary deformation measurements were acquired. Results, both in simulation and with experimental data, suggest that some electrode movement and boundary distortions can be reconstructed based on conductivity changes alone while reducing image artifacts in the process.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".