Enhancing Impedance Imaging Through Multimodal Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several noninvasive modalities including electrical impedance tomography (EIT), magnetic induction tomography (MIT), and induced-current EIT (ICEIT) have been developed for imaging the electrical conductivity distribution within a human body. Although these modalities differ in how the excitation and detection circuitry (electrodes or coils) are implemented, they share a number of common principles not only within the image reconstruction approaches but also with respect to the basic principle of generating a current density distribution inside a body and recording the resultant electric fields. In this paper, we are interested in comparing differences between these modalities and in theoretically understanding the compromises involved, despite the increased hardware cost and complexity that such a multimodal system brings along. To systematically assess the merits of combining data, we performed 3-D simulations for each modality and for the multimodal system by combining all available data. The normalized sensitivity matrices were computed for each modality based on the finite element method, and singular value decomposition was performed on the resultant matrices. We used both global and regional quality measures to evaluate and compare different modalities. This study has shown that the condition number of the sensitivity matrix obtained from the multimodal tomography with 16-electrode and 16-coil is much lower than the condition number produced in the conventional 16-channel EIT and MIT systems, and thus, produced promising results in terms of image stability. An improvement of about 20% in image resolution can be achieved considering feasible signal-to-noise ratio levels.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".