MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141173792 · doi:10.1109/isspa.2012.6310597

Real-time processing in dynamic ultrasound elastography: A GPU-based implementation using CUDA

2012· article· en· W2141173792 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Montagnon, Sami Hissoiny, Philippe Després, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCUDAComputer scienceMulti-core processorCentral processing unitGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsGraphics processing unitFrame rateElastographyParallel computingComputational scienceImage resolutionAlgorithmComputer hardwareUltrasoundArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)Graphics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the computational cost of the normalized cross-correlation (NCC) algorithm in ultrasound elastography. Parallel implementations of the NCC algorithm based on multicore architectures and a graphical processor unit (GPU) are formulated and applied to radio-frequency (RF) data from dynamic elastography experiments. Compared to single computer processor unit (CPU) performances, results show that parallel implementation of the NCC algorithm allows speedups of less than 5 for multi-threaded execution on CPU and up to 85 using a GPU. Processing frame rates from 80 to 173 sec <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-1</sup> have been achieved for large fields of view with good spatial resolution. The trade-off between accuracy, spatial resolution and computational cost in displacement estimation using the NCC algorithm therefore appears obsolete. Open source codes for implementing the NCC algorithm on GPU are made available at www.lbum-crchum.com.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207