Tracking boundary movement and exterior shape modelling in lung EIT imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) has shown significant promise for lung imaging. One key challenge for EIT in this application is the movement of electrodes during breathing, which introduces artefacts in reconstructed images. Various approaches have been proposed to compensate for electrode movement, but no comparison of these approaches is available. This paper analyses boundary model mismatch and electrode movement in lung EIT. The aim is to evaluate the extent to which various algorithms tolerate movement, and to determine if a patient specific model is required for EIT lung imaging. Movement data are simulated from a CT-based model, and image analysis is performed using quantitative figures of merit. The electrode movement is modelled based on expected values of chest movement and an extended Jacobian method is proposed to make use of exterior boundary tracking. Results show that a dynamical boundary tracking is the most robust method against any movement, but is computationally more expensive. Simultaneous electrode movement and conductivity reconstruction algorithms show increased robustness compared to only conductivity reconstruction. The results of this comparative study can help develop a better understanding of the impact of shape model mismatch and electrode movement in lung EIT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".