MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967375109 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/16/018

Assessment of the severity of partial volume effects and the performance of two template-based correction methods in a SPECT/CT phantom experiment

2011· article· en· W1967375109 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey Shcherbinin, A. Ćeller

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomPartial volumeAttenuationCorrection for attenuationNuclear medicineVolume (thermodynamics)Computer scienceBiomedical engineeringMaterials sciencePositron emission tomographyPhysicsMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the severity of partial volume effects (PVE), which may occur in SPECT/CT studies, and the performance of two template-based correction techniques. A hybrid SPECT/CT system was used to scan a thorax phantom that included lungs, a heart insert and six cylindrical containers of different sizes and activity concentrations. This phantom configuration allowed us to have non-uniform background activity and a combination of spill-in and spill-out effects for several compartments. The reconstruction with corrections for attenuation, scatter and resolution loss but not PVE correction accurately recovered absolute activities in large organs. However, the activities inside segmented 17-120 mL containers were underestimated by 20%-40%. After applying our PVE correction to the data pertaining to six small containers, the accuracy of the recovered total activity improved with errors ranging between 3% and 22% (non-iterative method) and between 5% and 15% (method with an iteratively updated background activity). While the non-iterative template-based algorithm demonstrated slightly better accuracy for cases with less severe PVE than the iterative algorithm, it underperformed in situations with considerable spill out and/or mixture of spill-in and spill-out effects.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207