MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297919235 · doi:10.1117/12.2212077

Deconvolution based photoacoustic reconstruction for directional transducer with sparsity regularization

2016· article· en· W2297919235 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Moradi, Shuo Tang, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDeconvolutionTransducerComputer scienceIterative reconstructionDirectivityUltrasonic sensorFourier transformAlgorithmSensitivity (control systems)Discrete cosine transformRegularization (linguistics)Blind deconvolutionReconstruction algorithmAcousticsOpticsComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsImage (mathematics)TelecommunicationsElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We define a deconvolution based photoacoustic reconstruction with sparsity regularization (DPARS) algorithm for image restoration from projections. The proposed method is capable of visualizing tissue in the presence of constraints such as the specific directivity of sensors and limited-view Photoacoustic Tomography (PAT). The directivity effect means that our algorithm treats the optically-generated ultrasonic waves based on which direction they arrive at the transducer. Most PA image reconstruction methods assume that sensors have omni-directional response; however, in practice, the sensors show higher sensitivity to the ultrasonic waves coming from one specific direction. In DPARS, the sensitivity of the transducer to incoming waves from different directions are considered. Thus, the DPARS algorithm takes into account the relative location of the absorbers with respect to the transducers, and generates a linear system of equations to solve for the distribution of absorbers. The numerical conditioning and computing times are improved by the use of a sparse Discrete Fourier Transform (DCT) representation of the distribution of absorption coefficients. Our simulation results show that DPARS outperforms the conventional Delay-and-Sum reconstruction method in terms of CNR and RMS errors. Experimental results confirm that DPARS provides images with higher resolution than DAS.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207