MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135649431 · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2008.820

Simplified inverse filter tracking algorithm for estimating the mean trabecular bone spacing

2008· article· en· W2135649431 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Huang, Dean Ta, Weiqi Wang, Lawrence H. Le

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsCepstrumBackscatter (email)Filter (signal processing)Ultrasonic sensorScale-invariant feature transformAutocorrelationAlgorithmAcousticsComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFeature extractionPhysicsWirelessStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasonic backscatter signals provide useful information relevant to bone tissue characterization. Trabecular bone microstructures have been considered as quasi-periodic tissues with a collection of regular and diffuse scatterers. This paper investigates the potential of a novel technique using a simplified inverse filter tracking (SIFT) algorithm to estimate mean trabecular bone spacing (MTBS) from ultrasonic backscatter signals. In contrast to other frequency-based methods, the SIFT algorithm is a time-based method and utilizes the amplitude and phase information of backscatter echoes, thus retaining the advantages of both the autocorrelation and the cepstral analysis techniques. The SIFT algorithm was applied to backscatter signals from simulations, phantoms, and bovine trabeculae in vitro. The estimated MTBS results were compared with those of the autoregressive (AR) cepstrum and quadratic transformation (QT) . The SIFT estimates are better than the AR cepstrum estimates and are comparable with the QT values. The study demonstrates that the SIFT algorithm has the potential to be a reliable and robust method for the estimation of MTBS in the presence of a small signal-to-noise ratio, a large spacing variation between regular scatterers, and a large scattering strength ratio of diffuse scatterers to regular ones.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency ControlSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207