MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754830521 · doi:10.1002/mp.12584

Integrating prior information into microwave tomography part 2: Impact of errors in prior information on microwave tomography image quality

2017· article· en· W2754830521 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsTomographyImage qualityMicrowave imagingMedical physicsMicrowaveQuality (philosophy)Computed tomographyMedical imagingIterative reconstructionComputer scienceComputer visionOpticsImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMedicineRadiologyPhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The authors have developed a method to combine a patient-specific map of tissue structure and average dielectric properties with microwave tomography. The patient-specific map is acquired with radar-based techniques and serves as prior information for microwave tomography. The impact that the degree of structural detail included in this prior information has on image quality was reported in a previous investigation. The aim of the present study is to extend this previous work by identifying and quantifying the impact that errors in the prior information have on image quality, including the reconstruction of internal structures and lesions embedded in fibroglandular tissue. This study also extends the work of others reported in literature by emulating a clinical setting with a set of experiments that incorporate heterogeneity into both the breast interior and glandular region, as well as prior information related to both fat and glandular structures. METHODS: Patient-specific structural information is acquired using radar-based methods that form a regional map of the breast. Errors are introduced to create a discrepancy in the geometry and electrical properties between the regional map and the model used to generate the data. This permits the impact that errors in the prior information have on image quality to be evaluated. Image quality is quantitatively assessed by measuring the ability of the algorithm to reconstruct both internal structures and lesions embedded in fibroglandular tissue. The study is conducted using both 2D and 3D numerical breast models constructed from MRI scans. RESULTS: The reconstruction results demonstrate robustness of the method relative to errors in the dielectric properties of the background regional map, and to misalignment errors. These errors do not significantly influence the reconstruction accuracy of the underlying structures, or the ability of the algorithm to reconstruct malignant tissue. Although misalignment errors do not significantly impact the quality of the reconstructed fat and glandular structures for the 3D scenarios, the dielectric properties are reconstructed less accurately within the glandular structure for these cases relative to the 2D cases. However, general agreement between the 2D and 3D results was found. CONCLUSION: A key contribution of this paper is the detailed analysis of the impact of prior information errors on the reconstruction accuracy and ability to detect tumors. The results support the utility of acquiring patient-specific information with radar-based techniques and incorporating this information into MWT. The method is robust to errors in the dielectric properties of the background regional map, and to misalignment errors. Completion of this analysis is an important step toward developing the method into a practical diagnostic tool.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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