MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996095631 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2019.8925556

Construction of adaptively regularized parametric maps for quantitative ultrasound imaging

2019· article· en· W2996095631 on OpenAlexaff
François Destrempes, Marc Gesnik, Guy Cloutier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametric statisticsComputer scienceBayesian information criterionGaussianLasso (programming language)MathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligencePhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of quantitative ultrasound (QUS), constructing semantic parametric maps based on local attenuation coefficient slope (ACS) or backscatter coefficient (BSC) modeling remains a challenge. These maps may be useful for detecting lesions or anatomical objects, or for characterizing anomalies within organs. The objective was to propose a methodology for constructing regularized parametric maps in the case of linear fitting models. The proposed method was tested on: i) the spectral Gaussian fit (SGF) BSC model, comprising the acoustical concentration and effective scatterer size; and ii) the spectral log-difference (SLD) model, yielding the local ACS. Regularization was formulated as generalized LASSO, upon setting a locally constant trend constraint on regression coefficients, with variable Lagrangian multiplier (LM). The latter was set with a variant of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC): the LM was maximized as to yield a BIC no worse than that of the maximum likelihood. Phantoms were made with agar and graphite powder (g.p.). Acquisitions were performed with a Verasonics Vantage 256 (Redmond, WA) scanner using an ATL L7-4 probe (Philips, Bothell, WA) driven at 5 MHz. Using 21 angles (-5oto 5o) compounding, 100 frames were acquired. Beamformed radiofrequency data were averaged over all frames. Power spectra were averaged over 15 scan lines, each spanning 10 pulse lengths, on overlapping windows. Acquisitions with same settings were made on a reference phantom (117GU-101 CIRS, Norfolk, VA). Ground truth ACS values were estimated with a planar reflection method yielding (in dB/cm/MHz): #1) 0.56 ± 0.06 (4.5% g.p.); and #2) 1.27 ± 0.09 (12% g.p.). i) SGF results: On phantoms with an inclusion (N = 4, #2 surrounded by #1), the contrast-to-noise ratio on difference in acoustic concentration (log-scale) was 2.7 ± 0.22 (no units) with regularization, and 0.97 ± 0.13 without it. ii) SLD results: On phantoms with side-by-side media (N = 3), biases were: #1) -0.11 ± 0.04; #2) -0.26 ± 0.03; and standard-deviations (SD) were: #1) 0.05 ± 0.04; #2) 0.09 ± 0.02. Without regularization, biases were #1) -0.09 ± 0.17; #2) -0.25 ± 0.20; SD values were: #1) 0.39 ± 0.04; #2) 0.38 ± 0.08.

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)0.015
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207