Experimental/clinical evaluation of EIT image reconstruction with ℓ<sub>1</sub>data and image norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) image reconstruction is ill-posed, and the spatial resolution of reconstructed images is low due to the diffuse propagation of current and limited number of independent measurements. Generally, image reconstruction is formulated using a regularized scheme in which ℓ 2 norms are preferred for both the data misfit and image prior terms due to computational convenience which result in smooth solutions. However, recent work on a Primal Dual-Interior Point Method (PDIPM) framework showed its effectiveness in dealing with the minimization problem. ℓ 1 norms on data and regularization terms in EIT image reconstruction address both problems of reconstruction with sharp edges and dealing with measurement errors. We aim for a clinical and experimental evaluation of the PDIPM method by selecting scenarios (human lung and dog breathing) with known electrode errors, which require a rigorous regularization and cause the failure of reconstructions with ℓ 2 norm. Results demonstrate the applicability of PDIPM algorithms, especially ℓ 1 data and regularization norms for clinical applications of EIT showing that ℓ 1 solution is not only more robust to measurement errors in clinical setting, but also provides high contrast resolution on organ boundaries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".