Thoracic EIT in 3D: experiences and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In EIT applications to the thorax, a single electrode plane has typically been used to reconstruct a transverse 2D 'slice'. However, such images can be misleading as EIT is sensitive to contrasts above and below the electrode plane, and ventilation and aeration inhomogeneities can be distributed in complex ways. Using two (or more) electrode planes, 3D EIT images may be reconstructed, but 3D reconstructions are currently little used in thoracic EIT. In this paper, we investigate an incremental pathway towards 3D EIT reconstructions, using two electrode planes to calculate improved transverse slices as an intermediate step. We recommend a specific placement of electrode planes, and further demonstrate the feasibility of multi-slice reconstruction in two species. APPROACH: Simulations of the forward and reconstructed sensitivities were analysed for two electrode planes using a 'square' pattern of electrode placement as a function of two variables: the stimulation and measurement 'skip', and the electrode plane separation. Next, single- versus two-plane measurements were compared in a horse and in human volunteers. We further show the feasibility of 3D reconstructions by reconstructing multiple transverse and, unusually, frontal slices during ventilation. MAIN RESULTS: Using two electrode planes leads to a reduced position error and improvement in off-plane contrast rejection. 2D reconstructions from two-plane measurements showed better separation of lungs, as compared to the single plane measurements which tend to push contrasts in the center of the image. 3D reconstructions of the same data show anatomically plausible images, inside as well as outside the volume between the two electrode planes. SIGNIFICANCE: Based on the results, we recommend EIT electrode planes separated by less than half of the minimum thoracic dimension with a 'skip 4' pattern and 'square' placement to produce images with good slice selectivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".