The Application of an Iterative Structure to the Delay-and-Sum and the Delay-Multiply-and-Sum Beamformers in Breast Microwave Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast microwave imaging (BMI) is a potential breast cancer screening method. This manuscript presents a novel iterative delay-and-sum (DAS) based reconstruction algorithm for BMI. This iterative-DAS (itDAS) algorithm uses a forward radar model to iteratively update an image estimate. A variation of the itDAS reconstruction algorithm that uses the delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) beamformer was also implemented (the itDMAS algorithm). Both algorithms were used to reconstruct images from experimental scans of an array of 3D-printed MRI-based breast phantoms performed with a clinical BMI system. The signal-to-clutter ratio (SCR) and signal-to-mean ratio (SMR) were used to compare the performance of the itDAS and itDMAS methods to the DAS and DMAS beamformers. While no significant difference between the itDAS and itDMAS methods was observed in most images, the itDAS algorithm produced reconstructions that had significantly higher SMR than the non-iterative methods, increasing contrast by as much as 19 dB over DAS and 13 dB over DMAS. The itDAS algorithm also increased the SCR of reconstructions by up to 5 dB over DAS and 4 dB over DMAS, indicating that both high-intensity and background clutter are reduced in images reconstructed by the itDAS algorithm.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".