Accounting for hardware imperfections in EIT image reconstruction algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive technique for imaging the conductivity distribution of a body section. Different types of EIT images can be reconstructed: absolute, time difference and frequency difference. Reconstruction algorithms are sensitive to many errors which translate into image artefacts. These errors generally result from incorrect modelling or inaccurate measurements. Every reconstruction algorithm incorporates a model of the physical set-up which must be as accurate as possible since any discrepancy with the actual set-up will cause image artefacts. Several methods have been proposed in the literature to improve the model realism, such as creating anatomical-shaped meshes, adding a complete electrode model and tracking changes in electrode contact impedances and positions. Absolute and frequency difference reconstruction algorithms are particularly sensitive to measurement errors and generally assume that measurements are made with an ideal EIT system. Real EIT systems have hardware imperfections that cause measurement errors. These errors translate into image artefacts since the reconstruction algorithm cannot properly discriminate genuine measurement variations produced by the medium under study from those caused by hardware imperfections. We therefore propose a method for eliminating these artefacts by integrating a model of the system hardware imperfections into the reconstruction algorithms. The effectiveness of the method has been evaluated by reconstructing absolute, time difference and frequency difference images with and without the hardware model from data acquired on a resistor mesh phantom. Results have shown that artefacts are smaller for images reconstructed with the model, especially for frequency difference imaging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".