MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062974097 · doi:10.1117/12.2005061

Improving the quality of photoacoustic images using the short-lag spatial coherence imaging technique

2013· article· en· W2062974097 on OpenAlexaff
Behnaz Pourebrahimi, Sangpil Yoon, Dustin Dopsa, Michael C. Kolios

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterBeamformingComputer scienceImage qualityPoint targetImage resolutionCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Point spread functionSynthetic aperture radarSpatial coherenceNoise (video)OpticsComputer visionPhysicsImage (mathematics)TelecommunicationsRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clutter noise is an important challenge in photocoustic (PA) and ultrasound (US) imaging as they degrade the image quality. In this paper, the short-lag spatial coherence (SLSC) imaging technique is used to reduce clutter and side lobes in PA images. In this technique, images are obtained through the spatial coherence of PA signals at small spatial distances across the transducer aperture. The performance of this technique in improving image quality and detecting point targets is compared with a conventional delay-and-sum (DAS) beamforming technique. A superior contrast, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) are observed when SLSC imaging is employed. Point spread function of point targets shows an improved spatial resolution and reduced side lobes when compared with DAS beamforming. Also shown is the impact of increasing the number of frames on which SLSC is applied. The results show that contrast, CNR, and SNR are improved with increasing number of frames.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207