Impact of Model Shape Mismatch on Reconstruction Quality in Electrical Impedance Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a low-cost, noninvasive and radiation free medical imaging modality for monitoring ventilation distribution in the lung. Although such information could be invaluable in preventing ventilator-induced lung injury in mechanically ventilated patients, clinical application of EIT is hindered by difficulties in interpreting the resulting images. One source of this difficulty is the frequent use of simple shapes which do not correspond to the anatomy to reconstruct EIT images. The mismatch between the true body shape and the one used for reconstruction is known to introduce errors, which to date have not been properly characterized. In the present study we, therefore, seek to 1) characterize and quantify the errors resulting from a reconstruction shape mismatch for a number of popular EIT reconstruction algorithms and 2) develop recommendations on the tolerated amount of mismatch for each algorithm. Using real and simulated data, we analyze the performance of four EIT reconstruction algorithms under different degrees of shape mismatch. Results suggest that while slight shape mismatch is well tolerated by all algorithms, using a circular shape severely degrades their performance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".