A new clutter rejection algorithm for doppler ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several strategies, known as clutter or wall Doppler filtering, were proposed to remove the strong echoes produced by stationary or slow moving tissue structures from the Doppler blood flow signal. In this study, the matching pursuit (MP) method is proposed to remove clutter components. The MP method decomposes the Doppler signal into wavelet atoms that are selected in a decreasing energy order. Thus, the high-energy clutter components are extracted first. In the present study, the pulsatile Doppler signal s(n) was simulated by a sum of random-phase sinusoids. Two types of high-amplitude clutter signals were then superimposed on s(n): time-varying low-frequency components, covering systole and early diastole, and short transient clutter signals, distributed within the whole cardiac cycle. The Doppler signals were modeled with the MP method and the most dominant atoms were subtracted from the time-domain signal s(n) until the signal-to-clutter (S/C) ratio reached a maximum. For the low-frequency clutter signal, the improvement in S/C ratio was 19.0 +/- 0.6 dB, and 72.0 +/- 4.5 atoms were required to reach this performance. For the transient clutter signal, ten atoms were required and the maximum improvement in S/C ratio was 5.5 +/- 0.5 dB. The performance of the MP method was also tested on real data recorded over the common carotid artery of a normal subject. Removing 15 atoms significantly improved the appearance of the Doppler sonogram contaminated with low-frequency clutter. Many more atoms (over 200) were required to remove transient clutter components. These results suggest the possibility of using this signal processing approach to implement clutter rejection filters on ultrasound commercial instruments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".