MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406997757 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/37/6/785

3D EIT image reconstruction with GREIT

2016· article· ar· W2406997757 on OpenAlexaff
Bartłomiej Grychtol, Beat Müller, Andy Adler

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2016
Typearticle
Languagear
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographySensitivity (control systems)Iterative reconstructionComputer scienceTransverse planePlanarComputer visionPlane (geometry)ElectrodeArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmTomographyPhysicsOpticsMathematicsElectronic engineeringEngineeringComputer graphics (images)MedicineRadiologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most applications of thoracic EIT use a single plane of electrodes on the chest from which a transverse image 'slice' is calculated. However, interpretation of EIT images is made difficult by the large region above and below the electrode plane to which EIT is sensitive. Volumetric EIT images using two (or more) electrode planes should help compensate, but are little used currently. The Graz consensus reconstruction algorithm for EIT (GREIT) has become popular in lung EIT. One shortcoming of the original formulation of GREIT is its restriction to reconstruction onto a 2D planar image. We present an extension of the GREIT algorithm to 3D and develop open-source tools to evaluate its performance as a function of the choice of stimulation and measurement pattern. Results show 3D GREIT using two electrode layers has significantly more uniform sensitivity profiles through the chest region. Overall, the advantages of 3D EIT are compelling.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations82
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207