MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043937802 · doi:10.1117/12.533848

Real-time spatial compounding with warping

2004· article· en· W2043937802 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adrian R. Groves, Robert Rohling

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage warpingComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage qualityFrame rateImage resolutionSpeckle patternImage processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial compound imaging via beam-steering aims to improve image quality through signal averaging. However, compounding techniques are vulnerable to speed-of-sound and refraction distortions in non-homogeneous tissue. We have developed a system to perform image-based non-rigid registration in real time. The goal is to increase image quality by improving the alignment of the ultrasound frames before compounding. Frames are acquired by a PC-based ultrasound machine (Ultrasonix Inc, Vancouver, Canada), and transmitted to a Windows-based workstation through a high-speed network. Robust image-to-image registration (warping) is performed using block-based estimation of local shifts and thin-plate spline interpolation. Compound images are computed as a rolling average of the nine most recent warped frames. The procedure runs at 20 frames per second on a dual-processor Xeon workstation, demonstrating the feasibility of sophisticated real-time image processing on a standard PC platform. High speed is achieved through algorithm refinements, approximations in speed-critical sections, and low-level optimizations. The result is a fully-automatic real-time spatial compounding system with a demonstrated improvement in image quality. Tests of registration accuracy were performed on simulated data with realistic speckle patterns, using a 10% speed-of-sound variation and an 8° beam-steering angle. The average misalignment across the image was reduced by 70%, from of 0.22 mm to 0.07 mm; in the deepest parts of the image, alignment was improved by 91%. Improved quality is demonstrated on images of a human forearm, which show visibly improved edge sharpness. This work is one of a series of projects demonstrating the ability of a new open-architecture ultrasound system.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207