MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902332899 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2018.2813759

Microbubble Localization for Three-Dimensional Superresolution Ultrasound Imaging Using Curve Fitting and Deconvolution Methods

2018· article· en· W2902332899 on OpenAlexaff
Foroohar Foroozan, Meaghan A. O’Reilly, Kullervo Hynynen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsDeconvolutionPoint spread functionImage resolutionGaussianBlind deconvolutionCurve fittingPixelComputer scienceIterative reconstructionStandard deviationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOpticsAlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superresolution algorithms in ultrasound imaging are attracting the interest of researchers recently due to the ability of these methods to enable enhanced vascular imaging. In this study, two superresolution imaging methods are compared for postprocessing images of microbubbles generated using passive acoustic mapping (PAM) methods with a potential application of three-dimensional (3-D) brain vascular imaging. The first method is based on fitting single bubble images one at a time with a 3-D Gaussian profile to localize the microbubbles and a superresolution image is then formed using the uncertainty of the localization as the standard deviation of the Gaussian profile. The second superresolution method is based on image deconvolution that processes multiframe resolution-limited images iteratively and estimates the intensity at each pixel of the superresolution image without the need for localizing each microbubble. The point spread function is approximated by a Gaussian curve which is similar to the beam response of the hemispherical transducer array used in our experimental setup. The Cramér-Rao Bounds of the two estimation techniques are derived analytically and the performance of these techniques is compared through numerical simulations based on experimental PAM images. For linear and sinusoidal traces, the localization errors between the estimated peaks by the fitting-based method and the actual source locations were 220 10 m and 210 5 m, respectively, as compared to 74 10 m and 59 8 m with the deconvolution-based method. However, in terms of the running time and the computational costs, the curve fitting technique outperforms the deconvolution-based approach.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207