MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164960992 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2015.0197

Simulation studies of filtered spatial compounding (FSC) and filtered frequency compounding (FFC) in synthetic transmit aperture (STA) imaging

2015· article· en· W2164960992 on OpenAlexafffund
Ping Gong, Michael C. Kolios, Yuan Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsSpeckle patternCompoundingOpticsSpeckle noiseSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Aperture (computer memory)Frequency domainContrast-to-noise ratioFilter (signal processing)Materials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceImage qualityAcousticsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speckle patterns are formed by constructive and destructive interference of backscattered waves from non-resolvable scatterers. Speckles can result in a low speckle signal-to-noise ratio (sSNR) in the ultrasound images of even a uniform sample. Speckles also reduce the contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) and the detectability of lesions, especially for low contrast lesions. Moreover, undesired signals arising from off-axis targets can result in sidelobes and clutters which lead to even lower lesion CNR. Typically, the speckle SNR can be increased by compounding, either spatial compounding (SC) or frequency compounding (FC). Here we propose methods to implement a 2-dimentional (2-D) aperture domain filter in the SC and FC processes, which are referred to as filtered spatial compounding (FSC) and filtered frequency compounding (FFC), for synthetic transmit aperture (STA) imaging. Both FSC and FFC can provide more homogeneous speckle patterns with improved speckle SNR and lesion CNR. The aperture domain filter reduces the interference effect of the off-axis signals to further enhance lesion CNR. Consequently, the target detectabilities (lesion-signal-to-noise ratio (lSNR)) in both FSC and FFC are increased significantly, up to around 3 times, compared to that in the standard delay-and-sum (DAS) 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207