MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019759451 · doi:10.1117/12.383077

<title>Compression of ultrasound images using wavelet-based space-frequency partitions</title>

2000· article· en· W2019759451 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin Kwan-Yeung Chiu, J. Vaisey, M. Stella Atkins

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet partitioning in hierarchical treesComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCodecComputer visionImage compressionWaveletData compressionWavelet transformPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Image processingDiscrete wavelet transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the compression of grayscale medical ultrasound images using a new compression technique, space- frequency segmentation. This method finds the rate- distortion optimal representation of an image from a large set of possible space-frequency partitions and quantizer combinations. The method is especially effective when the images to code are statistically inhomogeneous, which is the case for medical ultrasound images. We implemented a real compression algorithm based on this method, and applied the resulting algorithm to representation ultrasound images. The result is an effective technique that performs significantly better than a current leading wavelet transform coding algorithm, Set Partitioning In Hierarchical Trees (SPIHT), using the standard objective PSNR distortion measure. The performance of our space-frequency codec is illustrated, and the space-frequency partitions described. To obtain a qualitative measure of our method's performance, we describe an expert viewer study, where images compressed using both space-frequency compression and SPIHT were presented to ultrasound radiologists to obtain expert viewer assessment of the differences in quality between images from the two different methods. The expert viewer study showed the improved quality of space-frequency compressed images compared to SPIHT compressed images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207