Construction of adaptively regularized parametric maps for quantitative ultrasound imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".