MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759838755 · doi:10.1109/tci.2017.2756022

An Analysis of the Assumptions Inherent to Near-Field Beamforming for Biomedical Applications

2017· article· en· W2759838755 on OpenAlexafffund
Charlotte Curtis, Benjamin R. Lavoie, Elise Fear

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computational Imaging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsBeamformingMicrowave imagingComputer scienceField (mathematics)Synthetic aperture radarRadar imagingOperator (biology)Artificial intelligenceMicrowaveRadarMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microwave imaging for biomedical applications is a growing field that shows promise in early patient studies. Interpretation of preclinical imaging results is difficult, in part due to an incomplete understanding of the imaging operator. In this paper, near-field beamforming is demonstrated to be analogous to synthetic aperture radar, and both imaging methods are shown to depend on several simplifying assumptions. The influence of these assumptions is analyzed using analytical and simulated models, and the results are confirmed in an experimental setup. These observations are further explored in application to simulations of realistic breast models as well as patient data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Computational ImagingSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207