Objective Assessment and Design Improvement of a Staring, Sparse Transducer Array by the Spatial Crosstalk Matrix for 3D Photoacoustic Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate reconstruction of 3D photoacoustic (PA) images requires detection of photoacoustic signals from many angles. Several groups have adopted staring ultrasound arrays, but assessment of array performance has been limited. We previously reported on a method to calibrate a 3D PA tomography (PAT) staring array system and analyze system performance using singular value decomposition (SVD). The developed SVD metric, however, was impractical for large system matrices, which are typical of 3D PAT problems. The present study consisted of two main objectives. The first objective aimed to introduce the crosstalk matrix concept to the field of PAT for system design. Figures-of-merit utilized in this study were root mean square error, peak signal-to-noise ratio, mean absolute error, and a three dimensional structural similarity index, which were derived between the normalized spatial crosstalk matrix and the identity matrix. The applicability of this approach for 3D PAT was validated by observing the response of the figures-of-merit in relation to well-understood PAT sampling characteristics (i.e. spatial and temporal sampling rate). The second objective aimed to utilize the figures-of-merit to characterize and improve the performance of a near-spherical staring array design. Transducer arrangement, array radius, and array angular coverage were the design parameters examined. We observed that the performance of a 129-element staring transducer array for 3D PAT could be improved by selection of optimal values of the design parameters. The results suggested that this formulation could be used to objectively characterize 3D PAT system performance and would enable the development of efficient strategies for system design optimization.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".