offset between tumour location and simulated tumour location

[vigneshrk29]

Hello,

When I run the given examples, I get a difference between tumour location specified and tumour location simulated. Could this offset be due to imaging domain having pixels outside the scope of antennas? Or else what may be the cause?

In the attached image, red are antennas and black is specified tumour location

[vigneshrk29]

Hi,

any help with the above question would be really appreciated

Thanks
Vignesh

[shahkaram]

Hello dear Vignesh,

1-
The short answer is a question:
If methods work fine, why are researchers working on them? I mean it is customary to detect a tumor with offset, but, of course, undesired!
Based on my experiences, the main point (if you implement a suitable method correctly) is choosing the average relative permittivity.

2-
Using this toolbox (or in general, any method), you can estimate the scattered signal (finally, energy) from any arbitrary point, no matter inside or outside of the antenna structure. Getting deeper into this topic, the antenna structure has an impact on the result, but forget that for now!
Anyway, I don't see any point outside the antenna structure in your image.

I hope it helps you.
Please feel free to ask any questions.

Wish you the best,
Abbas

[vigneshrk29]

Hi Abbas,

Thanks for your reply.

1. I really appreciate the work and apologise if I my question sounded inappropriate. The reason I asked about the offset is for validation purposes. My application is in identification of bone and due to the nature of heterogeneity of tissue, I am not sure if I am observing noise or an actual bone in the image. When I plot the position the bone is supposed to be at, there is an offset, so my question
2. I still have not figured out a way of changing the imaging domain to surround my antennas specifically. For example, if there are 7 wearable antennas around a leg, not in a proper circle, the imaging domain has points outside the antenna. So I wondered if the imaging domain points matter.