MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735337215 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2017.2728323

Electrical Impedance Tomography: Tissue Properties to Image Measures

2017· article· en· W2735337215 on OpenAlexaff
Andy Adler, Alistair Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyIterative reconstructionBiomedical engineeringImage resolutionImage qualityTomographyBlood flowSensitivity (control systems)Temporal resolutionPositron emission tomographyElectrical impedanceMaterials scienceElectrical resistivity tomographyFunctional electrical stimulationComputer scienceComputer visionElectronic engineeringMedicinePhysicsRadiologyEngineeringImage (mathematics)OpticsElectrical engineeringStimulationElectrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) uses electrical stimulation and measurement at the body surface to image the electrical properties of internal tissues. It has the advantage of noninvasiveness and high temporal resolution but suffers from poor spatial resolution and sensitivity to electrode movement and contact quality. EIT can be useful to applications, where there are conductive contrasts between tissues, fluids, or gasses, such as imaging of cancerous or ischemic tissue or functional monitoring of breathing, blood flow, gastric motility, and neural activity. The past decade has seen clinical application and commercial activity using EIT for ventilation monitoring. Interpretation of EIT-based measures is complex, and this review paper focuses on describing the image interpretation “pathway.” We review this pathway, from Tissue Electrical Properties, EIT Electrodes & Hardware, Sensitivity, Image Reconstruction, Image Processing to EIT Measures. The relationship is discussed between the clinically relevant parameters and the reconstructed properties. An overview is given of areas of EIT application and of our perspectives for research and development.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations286
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207