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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
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