MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deformable-Detection Transformer for Microbubble Localization in Ultrasound Localization Microscopy

2023· article· en· W4388450796 on OpenAlexafffund
Sepideh K. Gharamaleki, Brandon Helfield, Hassan Rivaz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceGridInferenceArtificial intelligenceData miningComputer visionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To overcome the half a wavelength resolution limitations of ultrasound imaging, microbubbles (MBs) have been utilized widely in the field. Conventional MB localization methods are limited whether by exhaustive parameter tuning or considering a fixed Point Spread Function (PSF) for MBs. This questions their adaptability to different imaging settings or depths. As a result, development of methods that don’t rely on manually adjusted parameters is crucial. Previously, we used a transformer-based approach i.e. DEtection TRansformer (DETR) [1], [2] to address the above mentioned issues. However, DETR suffers from long training times and lower precision for smaller objects. In this paper, we propose the application of DEformable DETR (DE-DETR) [3] for MB localization to mitigate DETR’s above mentioned challenges. As opposed to DETR, where attention is casted upon all grid pixels, DE-DETR utilizes a multi-scale deformable attention to distribute attention within a limited budget. To evaluate the proposed strategy, pre-trained DE-DETR was fine-tuned on a subset of the dataset provided by the IEEE IUS Ultra-SR challenge organizers using transfer learning principles and subsequently we tested the network on the rest of the dataset, excluding the highly correlated frames. The results manifest an improvement both in precision and recall and the final super-resolution maps compared to DETR.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207