Tissue Discrimination from Impedance Spectroscopy as a Multi-objective Optimisation Problem with Weighted Naïve Bayes Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue classification from electrical impedance spectroscopy has several applications in diagnosis, surgical planning, and minimally invasive surgery. The method involves applying an alternating current to the sample and measuring its electric impedance at various frequencies. The spectrum is fit to a equivalent electric circuit that mimics the shape of the tissue's impedance spectrum. The model parameters are then used for classification. This paper proposes a new solution to decompose the model fitting problem into a form suitable for multi-objective optimisation, from which all the non-dominated solutions are used to form the database of parameters for a given tissue, as opposed to a single solution that is typically seen in impedance spectroscopy. The solution explores the use of the reference point dominance condition within Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II to fit the data to the double dispersion Cole model. Each non-dominated solution contain values for the dispersion model elements. The multiple parameter value solutions from the optimiser are used as features in a weighted Naïve Bayes classifier to identify a new tissue sample. Experiments results in 3 different tissue samples shows that the method is successful in correctly labelling the data with an average accuracy of 89%.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".