MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518591292 · doi:10.1109/iscas.2016.7527161

Two-pass beamforming for ultrasound imaging

2016· article· en· W2518591292 on OpenAlexaff
Hichem Rehouma, Daler Rakhmatov, M. Albulayli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingAdaptive beamformerComputer scienceImaging phantomEnvelope (radar)AlgorithmImage qualityImage (mathematics)Computer visionTelecommunicationsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a simple two-pass beamforming scheme that combines adaptive and nonadaptive methods to achieve high-quality ultrasound images at low computational cost. During the first pass, our beamformer processes buffered input vectors using an inexpensive nonadaptive method and computes the corresponding envelope. Based on that envelope information, selected outputs may be recomputed during the second pass (to improve beamforming performance) using an expensive adaptive method. The purpose of the first pass is to identify which nonadaptively-beamformed outputs can be spared from a heavy computational load of adaptive beamforming taking place during the second pass. In t his work, our beamforming scheme combines the nonadaptive delay-and-sum (DAS) beamformer and the adaptive Generalized Sidelobe Canceller (GSC), and it selects outputs for recomputation based on a threshold window. We have evaluated our scheme using simulated ultrasound images of a 12-point phantom and a point-scatterer-cyst phantom, achieving substantial threshold-dependent computational savings while maintaining acceptable image resolution and contrast, compared to pure GSC beamforming.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207