MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113761410 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/30/6/s03

GREIT: a unified approach to 2D linear EIT reconstruction of lung images

2009· article· ar· W2113761410 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languagear
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalCarleton University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyIterative reconstructionFigure of meritAlgorithmComputer scienceWaveletSensitivity (control systems)Reconstruction algorithmNoise (video)Computer visionTomographyArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Electronic engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is an attractive method for clinically monitoring patients during mechanical ventilation, because it can provide a non-invasive continuous image of pulmonary impedance which indicates the distribution of ventilation. However, most clinical and physiological research in lung EIT is done using older and proprietary algorithms; this is an obstacle to interpretation of EIT images because the reconstructed images are not well characterized. To address this issue, we develop a consensus linear reconstruction algorithm for lung EIT, called GREIT (Graz consensus Reconstruction algorithm for EIT). This paper describes the unified approach to linear image reconstruction developed for GREIT. The framework for the linear reconstruction algorithm consists of (1) detailed finite element models of a representative adult and neonatal thorax, (2) consensus on the performance figures of merit for EIT image reconstruction and (3) a systematic approach to optimize a linear reconstruction matrix to desired performance measures. Consensus figures of merit, in order of importance, are (a) uniform amplitude response, (b) small and uniform position error, (c) small ringing artefacts, (d) uniform resolution, (e) limited shape deformation and (f) high resolution. Such figures of merit must be attained while maintaining small noise amplification and small sensitivity to electrode and boundary movement. This approach represents the consensus of a large and representative group of experts in EIT algorithm design and clinical applications for pulmonary monitoring. All software and data to implement and test the algorithm have been made available under an open source license which allows free research and commercial use.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.191 · 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