MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169409592 · doi:10.1109/aps.1994.408028

Electrical impedance computed tomography in three-dimensional imaging

2002· article· en· W2169409592 on OpenAlexaff
Mu Zhen, Anthony S. Wexler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyDiscretizationComputer scienceFinite element methodElectrical impedanceIterative reconstructionElectrical resistivity tomographyPermittivityImage qualityPoisson's equationLaplace transformLaplace's equationMedical imagingTomographyAlgorithmImage (mathematics)Boundary value problemElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsElectrical resistivity and conductivityElectrical engineeringMathematical analysisOpticsPhysicsDielectric

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical impedance computed tomography (EICT) is the technique which reconstructs the image within a body based on the variation of electrical conductivity and permittivity by using electrical measurements on its boundary. It has the advantages of reduced biological hazard and less expensive hardware, therefore, it can be used as an alternative means for continuous monitoring in medical or environmental applications. Efforts have been made to develop algorithms and to improve the image quality in 2D imaging. Many algorithms employ the Poisson (Laplace) equation to describe the potential distributions with the finite element method. The present paper discusses the models for EICT in 3D applications and the excitation/measurement pattern effects on image quality, and presents simulation results. A network approach to study the features of EICT algorithms is introduced in the paper, so that the discretization problems will not affect the evaluations of an EICT algorithm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207