MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2002025007 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/19/6851

Deriving effective atomic numbers from DECT based on a parameterization of the ratio of high and low linear attenuation coefficients

2013· article· en· W2002025007 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesIris O'Brien Foundation
Mots-clésImaging phantomAttenuationScannerEffective atomic numberDigital Enhanced Cordless TelecommunicationsPhotonCorrection for attenuationAttenuation coefficientComputational physicsOpticsMathematicsMaterials sciencePhysicsNuclear medicineComputer scienceMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) can provide simultaneous estimation of relative electron density ρe and effective atomic number Zeff. The ability to obtain these quantities (ρe, Zeff) has been shown to benefit selected radiotherapy applications where tissue characterization is required. The conventional analysis method (spectral method) relies on knowledge of the CT scanner photon spectra which may be difficult to obtain accurately. Furthermore an approximate empirical attenuation correction of the photon spectrum through the patient is necessary. We present an alternative approach based on a parameterization of the measured ratio of low and high kVp linear attenuation coefficients for deriving Zeff which does not require the estimation of the CT scanner spectra. In a first approach, the tissue substitute method (TSM), the Rutherford parameterization of the linear attenuation coefficients was employed to derive a relation between Zeff and the ratio of the linear attenuation coefficients measured at the low and high kVp of the CT scanner. A phantom containing 16 tissue mimicking inserts was scanned with a dual source DECT scanner at 80 and 140 kVp. The data from the 16 inserts phantom was used to obtain model parameters for the relation between Zeff and [Formula: see text]. The accuracy of the method was evaluated with a second phantom containing 4 tissue mimicking inserts. The TSM was compared to a more complex approach, the reference tissue method (RTM), which requires the derivation of stoichiometric fit parameters. These were derived from the 16 inserts phantom scans and used to calculate CT numbers at 80 and 140 kVp for a set of tabulated reference human tissues. Model parameters for the parameterization of [Formula: see text] were estimated for this reference tissue dataset and compared to the results of the TSM. Residuals on Zeff for the reference tissue dataset for both TSM and RTM were compared to those obtained from the spectral method. The tissue substitutes were well fitted by the TSM with R(2) = 0.9930. Residuals on Zeff for the phantoms were similar between the TSM and spectral methods for Zeff < 8 while they were improved by the TSM for higher Zeff. The RTM fitted the reference tissue dataset well with R(2) = 0.9999. Comparing the Zeff extracted from TSM and the more complex RTM to the known values from the reference tissue dataset yielded errors of up to 0.3 and 0.15 units of Zeff respectively. The parameterization approach yielded standard deviations which were up to 0.3 units of Zeff higher than those observed with the spectral method for Zeff around 7.5. Procedures for the DECT estimation of Zeff removing the need for estimates of the CT scanner spectra have been presented. Both the TSM and the more complex RTM performed better than the spectral method. The RTM yielded the best results for the reference human tissue dataset reducing errors from up to 0.3 to 0.15 units of Zeff compared to the simpler TSM. Both TSM and RTM are simpler to implement than the spectral method which requires estimates of the CT scanner spectra.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,717
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,156

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle