Novel Technology Allowing Cone Beam Computed Tomography in 6 Seconds: A Patient Study of Comparative Image Quality
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the image quality provided by a novel cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) platform (HyperSight, Varian Medical Systems), a platform with enhanced reconstruction algorithms as well as rapid acquisition times. Image quality was compared with both status quo CBCT for image guidance, and to fan beam CT (FBCT) acquired on a CT simulator (CTsim). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a clinical study, 30 individuals were recruited for whom either deep inspiration (DIBH) or deep exhalation breath hold (DEBH) was used during imaging and radiation treatment of tumors involving liver, lung, breast, abdomen, chest wall, and pancreatic sites. All subjects were imaged during breath hold with CBCT on a standard image guidance platform (TrueBeam 2.7, Varian Medical Systems) and FBCT CT (CTsim, GE Optima). HyperSight imaging with both breath hold (HSBH) and free breathing (HSFB) was performed in a single session. The 4 image sets thus acquired were registered and compared using metrics quantifying artifact index, image nonuniformity, contrast, contrast-to-noise ratio, and difference of Hounsfield unit (HU) from CTsim. RESULTS: HSBH provided less severe artifacts compared with both HSFB and TrueBeam. The severity of artifacts in HSBH images was similar to that in CTsim images, with statistically similar artifact index values. CTsim provided the best image uniformity; however, HSBH provided improved uniformity compared with both HSFB and TrueBeam. CTsim demonstrated elevated contrast compared with HyperSight imaging, but both HSBH and HSFB imaging showed superior contrast-to-noise ratio characteristics compared with TrueBeam. The median HU difference of HSBH from CTsim was within 1 HU for muscle/fat tissue, 12 HU for bone, and 14 HU for lung. CONCLUSIONS: The HyperSight system provides 6-second CBCT acquisition with image artifacts that are significantly reduced compared with TrueBeam and comparable to those in CTsim FBCT imaging. HyperSight breath hold imaging was of higher quality compared with free breathing imaging on the same system. The median HU value in HyperSight breath hold imaging is within 15 HU of that in CTsim imaging for muscle, fat, bone, and lung tissue types, indicating the utility of image data for direct dose calculation in adaptive workflows.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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