Improvement of performance and sensitivity of 2D and 3D image reconstruction in EIT using EFG forward model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a pure element-free Galerkin method (EFGM) forward model for image reconstruction in 2D and 3D electrical impedance tomography (EIT) using an adaptive current injection method. In EIT systems with the adapting current injection method, both static and dynamic images can be reconstructed; however, determination of electrode contact impedances in the complete electrode model is difficult and the Gap model is used. In this paper, in the EIT forward problem a weak form functional based on the Gap model and a pure EFGM approach are developed, and in the EIT inverse problem, Jacobian matrix is computed by the EFGM, and a fast integration technique is introduced to calculate the entries of the Jacobian matrix within an adequate computation time. The influence of increasing the density of nodes at and near the electrodes with steep electric potential gradients on the accuracy of FEM and EFGM forward solutions is investigated, and the performance of the image reconstruction algorithm with the proposed fast integration technique is examined. The numerical results reveal that the proposed EFGM forward model with the fast integration technique has an efficient performance both in terms of mean relative imaging errors and computational time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".