MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152654840 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2158212

Computed Basis Functions for Finite Element Analysis Based on Tomographic Data

2011· article· en· W2152654840 on OpenAlexaff
Huanhuan Gu, Jean Gotman, J.P. Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelFinite element methodCube (algebra)Basis (linear algebra)Basis functionDimension (graph theory)Mathematical analysisDipoleComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsGeometryArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In bioelectromagnetics, the structures in which the electromagnetic field is to be computed are sometimes defined by a fine grid of voxels (3-D cells) whose tissue types are obtained by tomography. A novel finite element method is proposed for such cases. A simple, regular mesh of cube elements is constructed, each containing the same, integer number of voxels. There may be several different tissues present within an element, but this is accommodated by computing element basis functions that approximately respect the interface conditions between different tissues. Results are presented for a test model of 128 (3) voxels, consisting of nested dielectric cubes, driven by specified charges. The electrostatic potential computed with the new method agrees well with that of a conventional finite element code: the rms difference along the sample line is 1.5% of the highest voltage. Results are also presented for the potential due to a current dipole placed in a brain model of 181 × 217 × 181 voxels, derived from MRI data. The new method gives potentials that are different to those obtained by treating each voxel as an element by 1% of the peak voltage, yet the global finite element matrix has a dimension which is more than 50 times smaller.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207