MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945740164 · doi:10.3390/jimaging5050055

Novel Stopping Criteria for Optimization-Based Microwave Breast Imaging Algorithms

2019· article· en· W2945740164 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Kaye, Ian Jeffrey, Joe LoVetri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Imaging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceMicrowave imagingEarly stoppingParametric statisticsMathematicsMicrowaveArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkStatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A discontinuous Galerkin formulation of the Contrast Source Inversion algorithm (DGM-CSI) for microwave breast imaging employing a frequency-cycling reconstruction technique has been modified here to include a set of automated stopping criteria that determine a suitable time to shift imaging frequencies and to globally terminate the reconstruction. Recent studies have explored the use of tissue-dependent geometrical mapping of the well-reconstructed real part to its imaginary part as initial guesses during consecutive frequency hops. This practice was shown to improve resulting 2D images of the dielectric properties of synthetic breast models, but a fixed number of iterations was used to halt DGM-CSI inversions arbitrarily. Herein, a new set of stopping conditions is introduced based on an intelligent statistical analysis of a window of past iterations of data error using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test. This non-parametric goodness-of-fit test establishes a pattern in the data error distribution, indicating an appropriate time to shift frequencies, or terminate the algorithm. The proposed stopping criteria are shown to improve the efficiency of DGM-CSI while yielding images of equivalent quality to assigning an often liberally overestimated number of iterations per reconstruction.

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)0.008
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ImagingSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207