MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604761457 · doi:10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5393

Implementation of an efficient Monte Carlo calculation for CBCT scatter correction: phantom study

2015· article· en· W1604761457 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Watson, Ernesto Mainegra‐Hing, Nada Tomic, Jan Seuntjens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsImaging phantomMonte Carlo methodImage qualityCone beam computed tomographyScannerComputer scienceProjection (relational algebra)Iterative reconstructionComputer visionMedical physicsPhysicsAlgorithmOpticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputed tomographyImage (mathematics)MedicineStatisticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images suffer from poor image quality, in a large part due to contamination from scattered X-rays. In this work, a Monte Carlo (MC)-based iterative scatter correction algorithm was implemented on measured phantom data acquired from a clinical on-board CBCT scanner. An efficient EGSnrc user code (egs_cbct) was used to transport photons through an uncorrected CBCT scan of a Catphan 600 phantom. From the simulation output, the contribution from primary and scattered photons was estimated in each projection image. From these estimates, an iterative scatter correction was performed on the raw CBCT projection data. The results of the scatter correction were compared with the default vendor reconstruction. The scatter correction was found to reduce the error in CT number for selected regions of interest, while improving contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) by 18%. These results demonstrate the performance of the proposed scatter correction algorithm in improving image quality for clinical CBCT images.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Clinical Medical PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207