MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2905766375 · doi:10.1002/mp.13354

Patient‐specific pixel‐based weighting factor dual‐energy x‐ray imaging system using <i>a priori </i><scp>CT</scp> data

2018· article· en· W2905766375 sur OpenAlexafffund
Sahar Darvish‐Molla, Michael C. Reno, Mike Sattarivand

Notice bibliographique

RevueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mots-clésImaging phantomWeightingPixelProjection (relational algebra)Medical imagingIterative reconstructionArtificial intelligenceEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceNuclear medicineComputer visionAlgorithmMathematicsPhysicsOpticsMedicineAcousticsStatistics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a novel patient-specific pixel-based weighting factor dual-energy (PP-DE) algorithm to effectively suppress bone throughout the image and overcome the limitation of the conventional DE algorithm with constant weighting factor which is restricted to regions with uniform patient thickness. Additionally, to derive theoretical expressions to describe the dependence of the weighting factors on several imaging parameters and validate them with measurement. METHODS: A step phantom was constructed consisting of slabs of solid water and bone materials. Thicknesses of bone ranged [0-6] cm in one direction and solid water [5-30] cm in the other direction. Projection images at 60 and 140 kVp were acquired using a clinical imaging system. Optimal weighting factors were found by iteratively varying it in the range [0-1.4], where bone and soft-tissue contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) reached zero. Bone and soft-tissue digitally reconstructed thicknesses were created using computed tomography (CT) images of a Rando phantom and ray tracing techniques. A weighting factor image (ω) was calculated using digitally reconstructed thicknesses (DRTs) and precalculated weighting factors from the step phantom. This ω image was then used to generate a PP-DE image. The PP-DE image was compared to the conventional DE image which uses a constant weighting factor throughout the image. The effect of the misaligned ω image on PP-DE images was investigated by acquiring LE and HE images at various shifts of Rando phantom. A rigid registration was used based on mutual information algorithm in Matlab. The signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) were calculated in the step phantom for the PP-DE image and compared to that of conventional DE technique. Analytical expressions for theoretical weighting factors were derived which included various effects such as beam hardening, scatter, and detector response. The analytical expressions were simulated in Spektr3.0 for different bone and solid water thicknesses as per the step phantom. A tray of steel pins was constructed and used with the step phantom to remove the scattered radiation. The simulated theoretical weighting factors were validated by comparing to those from the step phantom measurement. RESULTS: Optimal weighting factor values for the step phantom varied from 0.633 to 1.372 depending on region thickness. Thicker regions required larger weighting factors for bone cancellation. The PP-DE image of the Rando phantom favorably cancelled both ribs and spine, whereas in the conventional DE image, only one could be cancelled at a time. The misaligned ω image was less effective in removing all bones indicating the importance of alignment as part of the PP-DE algorithm implementation. The SNRs for the PP-DE image was larger than those of the conventional DE images for regions which required smaller weighting factors for bone suppression. Comparisons of measured and simulated weighting factors demonstrated a 3% agreement for all bone overlapped regions except for the thickest region with 30 cm of solid water overlapped with 6 cm bone where the signal was lost due to excess attenuation. CONCLUSIONS: A novel PP-DE algorithm was developed which can create higher quality DE images with enhanced bone cancellation and improved noise characteristics compared to conventional DE technique. In addition, theoretical weighting factor expressions were derived and validated against measurement.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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 candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,880
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

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 savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
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 Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,221 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMedical PhysicsMême sujetAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingTravaux en français237 207