MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2057925319 · doi:10.1117/12.462157

<title>New clutter-rejection algorithm for Doppler ultrasound</title>

2002· article· en· W2057925319 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Cloutier, Danmin Chen, Louis‐Gilles Durand

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterDoppler effectSIGNAL (programming language)AcousticsComputer scienceEnergy (signal processing)Signal processingConstant false alarm ratePhysicsAlgorithmAmplitudeMathematicsOpticsTelecommunicationsRadarStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several strategies, known as clutter or wall Doppler filtering, were proposed to remove the strong echoes produced by stationary or slow moving tissue structures from the Doppler blood flow signal. In this study, the matching pursuit (MP) method is proposed to remove clutter components. The MP method decomposes the Doppler signal into wavelet atoms that are selected in a decreasing energy order. Thus, the high-energy clutter components are extracted first. In the present study, the pulsatile Doppler signal s(n) was simulated by a sum of random-phase sinusoids. Two types of high-amplitude clutter signals were then superimposed on s(n): a time-varying low frequency component (type 1), covering systole and early diastole, and short transient clutter signals (type 2), distributed within the whole cardiac cycle. The Doppler signals were modeled with the MP method and the most dominant atoms were subtracted until the signal-to-clutter (S/C) ratio reached a maximum. For the type 1 clutter signal, the improvement in the S/C ratio was 19.0 +/- 0.6 dB, and 72.0 +/- 4.5 atoms were required to reach this performance. For the transient type 2 clutter signal, exactly 10 atoms were required and the maximum improvement in S/C ratio was 5.5 +/- 0.5 dB. These results suggest the possibility of using this signal processing approach to implement clutter rejection filters on ultrasound commercial instruments.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications→French-language works237,207→