MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585960605 · doi:10.1364/oe.25.002771

Deconvolution based photoacoustic reconstruction with sparsity regularization

2017· article· en· W2585960605 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Moradi, Shuo Tang, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDeconvolutionTikhonov regularizationAlgorithmIterative reconstructionBlind deconvolutionComputationRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceMathematicsOpticsInverse problemArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most photoacoustic tomography (PAT) reconstruction approaches, it is assumed that the receiving transducers have omnidirectional response and can fully surround the region of interest. These assumptions are not satisfied in practice. To deal with these limitations, we present a novel deconvolution based photoacoustic reconstruction with sparsity regularization (DPARS) technique. The DPARS algorithm is a semi-analytical reconstruction approach in which the projections of the absorber distribution derived from a deconvolution-based method are computed and used to generate a large linear system of equations. In these projections, computed over limited viewing angles, the directivity effect of the transducer is taken into account. The distribution of absorbers is computed using a sparse representation of absorber coefficients obtained from the discrete cosine transform. This sparse representation helps improve the numerical conditioning of the system of equations and reduces the computation time of the deconvolution-based approach by one order of magnitude relative to Tikhonov regularization. The algorithm has been tested in simulations, and using two-dimensional and three-dimensional experimental data obtained with a conventional ultrasound transducer. The results show that DPARS, when evaluated using contrast-to-noise ratio and root-mean-square errors, outperforms the conventional delay-and-sum (DAS) reconstruction method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations23
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207