MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197419434 · doi:10.1364/boe.431997

Denoising of pre-beamformed photoacoustic data using generative adversarial networks

2021· article· en· W3197419434 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Refaee, Corey J. Kelly, Hamid Moradi, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround truthNoise reductionArtificial intelligenceSingular value decompositionMean squared errorComputer scienceSimilarity (geometry)Pattern recognition (psychology)Noise (video)Frame (networking)Signal-to-noise ratio (imaging)Computer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)StatisticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have trained generative adversarial networks (GANs) to mimic both the effect of temporal averaging and of singular value decomposition (SVD) denoising. This effectively removes noise and acquisition artifacts and improves signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in both the radio-frequency (RF) data and in the corresponding photoacoustic reconstructions. The method allows a single frame acquisition instead of averaging multiple frames, reducing scan time and total laser dose significantly. We have tested this method on experimental data, and quantified the improvement over using either SVD denoising or frame averaging individually for both the RF data and the reconstructed images. We achieve a mean squared error (MSE) of 0.05%, structural similarity index measure (SSIM) of 0.78, and a feature similarity index measure (FSIM) of 0.85 compared to our ground-truth RF results. In the subsequent reconstructions using the denoised data we achieve a MSE of 0.05%, SSIM of 0.80, and a FSIM of 0.80 compared to our ground-truth reconstructions.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207