Edge-preserving ultrasonic strain imaging with uniform precision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasound elastography involves measuring the mechanical properties of tissue, and has many applications in diagnostics and intervention. A common step in different elastography methods is imaging the tissue while it undergoes deformation and estimating the displacement field from the images. A popular next step is to estimate tissue strain, which gives clues into the underlying tissue elasticity modulus. To estimate the strain, one should compute the gradient of the displacement image, which amplifies the noise. The noise is commonly minimized by least square estimation of the gradient from multiple displacement measurements, which reduces the noise by sacrificing image resolution. In this work, we adaptively adjust the level and orientation of the smoothing using two different mechanisms. First, the precision of the displacement field decreases significantly in the regions with high signal decorrelation, which requires increasing the smoothness. Second, smoothing the strain field at the boundaries between different tissue types blurs the edges, which can render small targets invisible. To minimize blurring and noise, we perform anisotropic smoothing parallel to the direction of edges. The first mechanism ensures that textures/variations in the strain image reflect underlying tissue properties and are not caused by errors in the displacement estimation. The second mechanism keeps the edges between different tissue structures sharp while minimizing the noise. We validate the proposed method using phantom and in-vivo clinical data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".