MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081986338 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2010.5627204

Electrical impedance tomography reconstruction using a monotonicity approach based on a priori knowledge

2010· article· en· W2081986338 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Flores‐Tapia, Stephen Pistorius

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyMicrowave imagingIterative reconstructionA priori and a posterioriMonotonic functionComputer scienceRegularization (linguistics)TomographyBreast imagingAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsMammographyMicrowavePhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical Impedance Tomography(EIT) has been proposed as an alternative modality for breast imaging. Current EIT reconstruction algorithms are based in optimization procedures that aim to minimize the difference between the recorded data and a set of candidate scenarios. However, these methods produce images with diffused edges, as sharp structures are penalized by current regularization techniques. In this paper, a novel edge preserving EIT reconstruction method is proposed. This technique uses a priori information obtained from Breast Microwave Radar images to estimate the location of the dense breast regions. Then, the monotonicity of the impedance matrix of the collected data is used to reconstruct a profile of the tissue distribution in the breast region. The proposed method yielded promising results when applied to numeric phantoms generated from Magnetic Resonance Imaging datasets.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207