MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391567772 · doi:10.1177/01617346231226224

Spectral-based Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging Processing Techniques: Comparisons of RF Versus IQ Approaches

2024· article· en· W4391567772 on OpenAlexaff
Mingrui Liu, Zhengchang Kou, Yuning Zhao, James Wiskin, Gregory J. Czarnota, Michael L. Oelze

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasonic Imaging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsRadio frequencySIGNAL (programming language)AttenuationComputer sciencePhysicsOpticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is an imaging technique which includes spectral-based parameterization. Typical spectral-based parameters include the backscatter coefficient (BSC) and attenuation coefficient slope (ACS). Traditionally, spectral-based QUS relies on the radio frequency (RF) signal to calculate the spectral-based parameters. Many clinical and research scanners only provide the in-phase and quadrature (IQ) signal. To acquire the RF data, the common approach is to convert IQ signal back into RF signal via mixing with a carrier frequency. In this study, we hypothesize that the performance, that is, accuracy and precision, of spectral-based parameters calculated directly from IQ data is as good as or better than using converted RF data. To test this hypothesis, estimation of the BSC and ACS using RF and IQ data from software, physical phantoms and in vivo rabbit data were analyzed and compared. The results indicated that there were only small differences in estimates of the BSC between when using the original RF, the IQ derived from the original RF and the RF reconverted from the IQ, that is, root mean square errors (RMSEs) were less than 0.04. Furthermore, the structural similarity index measure (SSIM) was calculated for ACS maps with a value greater than 0.96 for maps created using the original RF, IQ data and reconverted RF. On the other hand, the processing time using the IQ data compared to RF data were substantially less, that is, reduced by more than a factor of two. Therefore, this study confirms two things: (1) there is no need to convert IQ data back to RF data for conducting spectral-based QUS analysis, because the conversion from IQ back into RF data can introduce artifacts. (2) For the implementation of real-time QUS, there is an advantage to convert the original RF data into IQ data to conduct spectral-based QUS analysis because IQ data-based QUS can improve processing speed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasonic ImagingSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207