| Literature DB >> 33800188 |
Mohammad Tariqul Islam1, Md Tarikul Islam1, Md Samsuzzaman2, Salehin Kibria1, Muhammad E H Chowdhury3.
Abstract
Microwave imaging (MI) is a consistent health monitoring technique that can play a vital role in diagnosing anomalies in the breast. The reliability of biomedical imaging diagnosis is substantially dependent on the imaging algorithm. Widely used delay and sum (DAS)-based diagnosis algorithms suffer from some significant drawbacks. The delay multiply and sum (DMAS) is an improved method and has benefits over DAS in terms of greater contrast and better resolution. However, the main drawback of DMAS is its excessive computational complexity. This paper presents a compressed sensing (CS) approach of iteratively corrected DMAS (CS-ICDMAS) beamforming that reduces the channel calculation and computation time while maintaining image quality. The array setup for acquiring data comprised 16 Vivaldi antennas with a bandwidth of 2.70-11.20 GHz. The power of all the channels was calculated and low power channels were eliminated based on the compression factor. The algorithm involves data-independent techniques that eliminate multiple reflections. This can generate results similar to the uncompressed variants in a significantly lower time which is essential for real-time applications. This paper also investigates the experimental data that prove the enhanced performance of the algorithm.Entities:
Keywords: breast imaging; compressed sensing; delay multiply and sum; iterative correction; microwave imaging
Year: 2021 PMID: 33800188 PMCID: PMC8001916 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Flowchart of the research methodology.
Figure 2Imaging system setup (data-taking mode).
Figure 3Reflection coefficient measurement with a phantom load.
Figure 4Measured reflection coefficient in free space and a phantom load.
Figure 5(a) Mutual coupling measurements set up with adjacent antennas (b) Transmission results.
Figure 6The 8 × 8 scattering matrix measured in the presence of a breast phantom.
Figure 7Contour plot of the reconstructed image of a single tumor phantom (a) without tumor, using (b) DMAS (left), (c) proposed CS-ICDMAS (50% compression) and (d) CS-ICDMAS with 75% compression.
Figure 8Contour plot of the reconstructed image of two tumor phantoms using (a) DMAS, (b) proposed CS-ICDMAS (50% compression), (c) CS-ICDMAS with 75% compression.
Signal-to-mean ratio and execution time against the compression factor.
| ϗ | SMR (dB) | Execution Time (s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phantom 1 | Phantom 2 | Phantom 1 | Phantom 2 | |
| 3200 | 15.20 | 14.87 | 1455 | 1440 |
| 2800 | 14.90 | 13.86 | 852 | 843 |
| 2000 | 12.43 | 12.42 | 619 | 620 |
| 1600 | 10.47 | 12.21 | 427 | 421 |
| 1200 | 7.58 | 9.80 | 290 | 287 |
| 800 | 9.48 | 11.95 | 169 | 172 |
| 400 | 9.20 | 11.53 | 86 | 95 |
Figure 9(a) SMR and (b) execution time with respect to the compression factor.
Comparison of the execution time with the methods presented in the literature.
| Method | Execution Time(s) |
|---|---|
| DAS | 2087 |
| CF-DAS | 2175 |
| DMAS | 2425 |
| ICDMAS | 1455 |
| CS-ICDMAS (50% compression) | 427 |
| CS-ICDMAS (75% compression) | 169 |