MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033384954 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/32/7/s13

Data-driven classification of ventilated lung tissues using electrical impedance tomography

2011· article· en· W2033384954 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Gómez-Laberge, Matthew J. Hogan, Gunnar Elke, Norbert Weiler, Inéz Frerichs, Andy Adler

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyTidal volumeSupine positionRegion of interestLungBiomedical engineeringVentilation (architecture)Lung volumesNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRespiratory systemTomographyMedicinePhysicsRadiologyAnatomyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current methods for identifying ventilated lung regions utilizing electrical impedance tomography images rely on dividing the image into arbitrary regions of interest (ROI), manually delineating ROI, or forming ROI with pixels whose signal properties surpass an arbitrary threshold. In this paper, we propose a novel application of a data-driven classification method to identify ventilated lung ROI based on forming k clusters from pixels with correlated signals. A standard first-order model for lung mechanics is then applied to determine which ROI correspond to ventilated lung tissue. We applied the method in an experimental study of 16 mechanically ventilated swine in the supine position, which underwent changes in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and fraction of inspired oxygen (F(I)O(2)). In each stage of the experimental protocol, the method performed best with k = 4 and consistently identified 3 lung tissue ROI and 1 boundary tissue ROI in 15 of the 16 subjects. When testing for changes from baseline in lung position, tidal volume, and respiratory system compliance, we found that PEEP displaced the ventilated lung region dorsally by 2 cm, decreased tidal volume by 1.3%, and increased the respiratory system compliance time constant by 0.3 s. F(I)O(2) decreased tidal volume by 0.7%. All effects were tested at p < 0.05 with n = 16. These findings suggest that the proposed ROI detection method is robust and sensitive to ventilation dynamics in the experimental setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.088 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207