Poster — Thur Eve — 09: Evaluation of electrical impedance and computed tomography fusion algorithms using an anthropomorphic phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integration of biological conductivity information provided by Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) with anatomical information provided by Computed Tomography (CT) imaging could improve the ability to characterize tissues in clinical applications. In this paper, we report results of our study which compared the fusion of EIT with CT using three different image fusion algorithms, namely: weighted averaging, wavelet fusion, and ROI indexing. The ROI indexing method of fusion involves segmenting the regions of interest from the CT image and replacing the pixels with the pixels of the EIT image. The three algorithms were applied to a CT and EIT image of an anthropomorphic phantom, constructed out of five acrylic contrast targets with varying diameter embedded in a base of gelatin bolus. The imaging performance was assessed using Detectability and Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM). Wavelet fusion and ROI‐indexing resulted in lower Detectability (by 35% and 47%, respectively) yet higher SSIM (by 66% and 73%, respectively) than weighted averaging. Our results suggest that wavelet fusion and ROI‐indexing yielded more consistent and optimal fusion performance than weighted averaging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".