MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111298879 · doi:10.21037/qims-20-682

Lung regions identified with CT improve the value of global inhomogeneity index measured with electrical impedance tomography

2021· article· en· W3111298879 on OpenAlexaff
Lin Yang, Meng Dai, Knut Möller, Inéz Frerichs, Andy Adler, Feng Fu, Zhanqi Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi ProvinceFourth Military Medical UniversityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsElectrical impedance tomographyLungMedicineNuclear medicineInterquartile rangeVentilation (architecture)TomographyThorax (insect anatomy)ReproducibilityRadiologyAnatomyMathematicsInternal medicinePhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The global inhomogeneity (GI) index is a functional electrical impedance tomography (EIT) parameter which is used clinically to assess ventilation distribution. However, GI may underestimate the actual heterogeneity when the size of lung regions is underestimated. We propose a novel method to use anatomical information to correct the GI index calculation. Methods: EIT measurements were performed at the level of the fifth intercostal space in six patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The thorax and lungs were segmented automatically from serial individual CT scans. The anatomically derived lung regions were calculated in EIT images from simulating a homogeneous ventilation distribution in a finite element model. The conventional approach (GImeas,func), analyzes images in functionally-defined lung regions, while our proposed measure (GImeas,anat) is based on analysis in anatomically-defined regions. We additionally define a simulated comparison (GIsim,anat) to determine the lower limit of the GI measure for a homogenous distribution of ventilation. Results: As expected, the conventional GImeas,func [0.382 (0.088), median (interquartile range)] were significantly lower than the proposed GImeas,anat [0.823 (0.152), P<0.05], and were much closer to the lower limit GIsim,anat [0.343 (0.039)]. Both GImeas,anat and GImeas,func were strongly correlated with arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio (R=−0.88, P<0.05), whereas GIsim,anat (R=0.23) was not. GImeas,anat had a linear-regression slope 3.2 times that of GImeas,func suggesting a higher sensitivity to the changes in lung condition. Conclusions: The proposed GImeas,anat (or shortened as GIanat) is an improved measure of ventilation inhomogeneity over GI, and better reflects portion of non-ventilated regions due to alveolar collapse or overdistension.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207