MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160495993 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.260787

Gradient Distortion Correction for Low Frequency Current Density Imaging

2006· article· en· W2160495993 on OpenAlexaff
Charles X. B. Yan, T.P. DeMonte, M.L.G. Joy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomDistortion (music)CalibrationCurl (programming language)ComputationNonlinear distortionCurrent (fluid)PhysicsComputer scienceOpticsAlgorithmTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current density imaging (CDI) is a technique that uses magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the distribution of externally applied electric current inside tissues. However, GDI processing is rendered inaccurate by the distortion caused by the nonlinearity of MRI gradient fields. The distortion interferes with the proper registration and the curl operation required for correct computation of current density vectors. To address this problem, a calibration phantom was imaged to determine the distortion and to generate calibration maps to correct the distorted current density images. A validation experiment involving a cylindrical phantom was performed to verify this method. Comparison of the distorted and corrected images reveals that both the registration and the curl operation are successfully corrected by this method.

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)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207