Choice of reconstructed tissue properties affects interpretation of lung EIT images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) estimates an image of change in electrical properties within a body from stimulations and measurements at surface electrodes. There is significant interest in EIT as a tool to monitor and guide ventilation therapy in mechanically ventilated patients. In lung EIT, the EIT inverse problem is commonly linearized and only changes in electrical properties are reconstructed. Early algorithms reconstructed changes in resistivity, while most recent work using the finite element method reconstructs conductivity. Recently, we demonstrated that EIT images of ventilation can be misleading if the electrical contrasts within the thorax are not taken into account during the image reconstruction process. In this paper, we explore the effect of the choice of the reconstructed electrical properties (resistivity or conductivity) on the resulting EIT images. We show in simulation and experimental data that EIT images reconstructed with the same algorithm but with different parametrizations lead to large and clinically significant differences in the resulting images, which persist even after attempts to eliminate the impact of the parameter choice by recovering volume changes from the EIT images. Since there is no consensus among the most popular reconstruction algorithms and devices regarding the parametrization, this finding has implications for potential clinical use of EIT. We propose a program of research to develop reconstruction techniques that account for both the relationship between air volume and electrical properties of the lung and artefacts introduced by the linearization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".