MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529639780 · doi:10.1155/2015/161797

Accelerated Compressed Sensing Based CT Image Reconstruction

2015· article· en· W1529639780 on OpenAlexafffund
SayedMasoud Hashemi, Soosan Beheshti, P. Gill, Narinder Paul, R.S.C. Cobbold

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomIterative reconstructionInterpolation (computer graphics)AlgorithmComputer scienceComputationCompressed sensingNoise (video)Reconstruction algorithmProcess (computing)Radon transformFourier transformImage qualityComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)MathematicsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In X-ray computed tomography (CT) an important objective is to reduce the radiation dose without significantly degrading the image quality. Compressed sensing (CS) enables the radiation dose to be reduced by producing diagnostic images from a limited number of projections. However, conventional CS-based algorithms are computationally intensive and time-consuming. We propose a new algorithm that accelerates the CS-based reconstruction by using a fast pseudopolar Fourier based Radon transform and rebinning the diverging fan beams to parallel beams. The reconstruction process is analyzed using a maximum-a-posterior approach, which is transformed into a weighted CS problem. The weights involved in the proposed model are calculated based on the statistical characteristics of the reconstruction process, which is formulated in terms of the measurement noise and rebinning interpolation error. Therefore, the proposed method not only accelerates the reconstruction, but also removes the rebinning and interpolation errors. Simulation results are shown for phantoms and a patient. For example, a 512 × 512 Shepp-Logan phantom when reconstructed from 128 rebinned projections using a conventional CS method had 10% error, whereas with the proposed method the reconstruction error was less than 1%. Moreover, computation times of less than 30 sec were obtained using a standard desktop computer without numerical optimization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Mathematical Methods in MedicineSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207