MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087731171 · doi:10.1155/2013/673027

Microwave Imaging of Human Forearms: Pilot Study and Image Enhancement

2013· article· en· W2087731171 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin Gilmore, Amer Zakaria, Stephen Pistorius, Joe LoVetri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biomedical Imaging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaTRTech
FundersUniversity of ManitobaWestern Economic Diversification CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCancerCare Manitoba Foundation
KeywordsMicrowave imagingMicrowaveFinite element methodComputer scienceImage qualityInversion (geology)AlgorithmBiomedical engineeringComputer visionImage (mathematics)GeologyPhysicsMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a pilot study using a microwave tomography system in which we image the forearms of 5 adult male and female volunteers between the ages of 30 and 48. Microwave scattering data were collected at 0.8 to 1.2 GHz with 24 transmitting and receiving antennas located in a matching fluid of deionized water and table salt. Inversion of the microwave data was performed with a balanced version of the multiplicative-regularized contrast source inversion algorithm formulated using the finite-element method (FEM-CSI). T1-weighted MRI images of each volunteer's forearm were also collected in the same plane as the microwave scattering experiment. Initial "blind" imaging results from the utilized inversion algorithm show that the image quality is dependent on the thickness of the arm's peripheral adipose tissue layer; thicker layers of adipose tissue lead to poorer overall image quality. Due to the exible nature of the FEM-CSI algorithm used, prior information can be readily incorporated into the microwave imaging inversion process. We show that by introducing prior information into the FEM-CSI algorithm the internal anatomical features of all the arms are resolved, significantly improving the images. The prior information was estimated manually from the blind inversions using an ad hoc procedure.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations78
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Biomedical ImagingSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207