MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765837552 · doi:10.1109/tuffc.2017.2769118

Supervised Classification of the Accuracy of the Time Delay Estimation in Ultrasound Elastography

2017· article· en· W2765837552 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad Ghasemi Amidabadi, M. Omair Ahmad, Hassan Rivaz

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersScience and Engineering Research Council
KeywordsDecorrelationJitterImaging phantomDisplacement (psychology)ElastographyComputer scienceNoise (video)SIGNAL (programming language)Support vector machineAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceAcousticsPattern recognition (psychology)UltrasoundPhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accuracy of time-delay estimation (TDE) in ultrasound elastography is usually measured by calculating the value of normalized cross correlation (NCC) at the estimated displacement. NCC value, however, could be very high at a displacement estimate with large error, a well-known problem in TDE referred to as peak-hopping. Furthermore, NCC value could suffer from jitter error, which is due to electric noise and signal decorrelation. Herein, we propose a novel method to assess the accuracy of TDE by investigating the NCC profile around the estimated time-delay. We extract several features from the NCC profile, and utilize support vector machine to classify peak-hopping and jitter error. The results on simulation, phantom, and in vivo data show the significant improvement of the proposed algorithm compared to the state of the art techniques.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency ControlSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207