MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028573633 · doi:10.1177/154193120805201825

The Effect of Low-Pass Filtering on Target Detection in Simulated Ultrasound Images

2008· article· en· W2028573633 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Portnoy, Paul Milgram

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilter (signal processing)CovertComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSensitivity (control systems)Block (permutation group theory)Computer scienceHigh-pass filterUltrasoundLow-pass filterAcousticsMathematicsEngineeringElectronic engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the potential benefits of a novel image processing filter, based on introducing persistence to an image to increase visual sensitivity for ultrasound-guided nerve block procedures. The effectiveness of the filter was examined for multiple levels of target velocity and filter persistence, using simulated ultrasound-like images. Subjects were asked to detect a covert target in twelve experimental conditions. The experimental results show that the persistence filter augments the target's saliency and consequently contributes to an effective increase in visual sensitivity. In addition, the results show that the filter is most effective for mid-range target velocities combined with high levels of visual persistence. The study concludes that the filter has the potential to improve present ultrasound-guided nerve block procedures and provides recommendations for implementing the filter in real-world settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207