MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751974387 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09534-1

Compensated Row-Column Ultrasound Imaging System Using Multilayered Edge Guided Stochastically Fully Connected Random Fields

2017· article· en· W2751974387 on OpenAlexafffund
Ibrahim Ben Daya, Albert I. H. Chen, Mohammad Javad Shafiee, Alexander Wong, John T. W. Yeow

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsColumn (typography)Computer scienceSpeckle noiseSpeckle patternRow and column spacesEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPoint (geometry)GhostingNoise (video)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)RowTelecommunicationsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The row-column method received a lot of attention for 3-D ultrasound imaging. By reducing the number of connections required to address the 2-D array and therefore reducing the amount of data to handle, this addressing method allows for real time 3-D imaging. Row-column still has its limitations: the issues of sparsity, speckle noise inherent to ultrasound, the spatially varying point spread function, and the ghosting artifacts inherent to the row-column method must all be taken into account when building a reconstruction framework. In this research, we build on a previously published system and propose an edge-guided, compensated row-column ultrasound imaging system that incorporates multilayered edge-guided stochastically fully connected conditional random fields to address the limitations of the row-column method. Tests carried out on simulated and real row-column ultrasound images show the effectiveness of our proposed system over other published systems. Visual assessment show our proposed system's potential at preserving edges and reducing speckle. Quantitative analysis shows that our proposed system outperforms previously published systems when evaluated with metrics such as Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio, Coefficient of Correlation, and Effective Number of Looks. These results show the potential of our proposed system as an effective tool for enhancing 3-D row-column imaging.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207