SU‐E‐I‐52: Validation of Multi‐Frequency Electrical Impedance Tomography Using Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Multi‐frequency EIT has been reported to be a potential tool in distinguishing a tissue anomaly from background. In this study, we investigate the feasibility of acquiring functional information by comparing multi‐frequency EIT images in reference to the structural information from the CT image through fusion. Methods: EIT data was acquired from a slice of winter melon using sixteen electrodes around the phantom, injecting a current of 0.4mA at 100, 66, 24.8 and 9.9 kHz. Differential EIT images were generated by considering different combinations of pair frequencies, one serving as reference data and the other as test data. The experiment was repeated after creating an anomaly in the form of an off‐centered cavity of diameter 4.5 cm inside the melon. All EIT images were reconstructed using Electrical Impedance Tomography and Diffuse Optical Tomography Reconstruction Software (EIDORS) package in 2‐D differential imaging mode using one‐step Gaussian Newton minimization solver. CT image of the melon was obtained using a Phillips CT Scanner. A segmented binary mask image was generated based on the reference electrode position and the CT image to define the regions of interest. The region selected by the user was fused with the CT image through logical indexing. Results: Differential images based on the reference and test signal frequencies were reconstructed from EIT data. Result illustrated distinct structural inhomogeneity in seeded region compared to fruit flesh. The seeded region was seen as a higherimpedance region if the test frequency was lower than the base frequency in the differential EIT reconstruction. When the test frequency was higher than the base frequency, the signal experienced less electrical impedance in the seeded region during the EIT data acquisition. Conclusion: Frequency‐based differential EIT imaging can be explored to provide additional functional information along with structural information from CT for identifying different tissues.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".