MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112908310 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/28/7/s02

Accounting for hardware imperfections in EIT image reconstruction algorithms

2007· article· en· W2112908310 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyAlgorithmIterative reconstructionReconstruction algorithmComputer scienceComputer visionImaging phantomSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceElectrical impedanceEngineeringOpticsPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.250
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