MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969816563 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/2/003

A physical model of multiple-image radiography

2005· article· en· W1969816563 on OpenAlexaff
Gocha Khelashvili, Jovan G. Brankov, Dean Chapman, Mark A. Anastasio, Yongyi Yang, Zhong Zhong, Miles N. Wernick

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersBrookhaven National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsRefractionScatteringOpticsDiffractionPhysicsPhase-contrast imagingAbsorption (acoustics)RadiographyImage formationComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Computer visionPhase contrast microscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently proposed a phase-sensitive x-ray imaging method called multiple-image radiography (MIR), which is an improvement on the diffraction-enhanced imaging technique. MIR simultaneously produces three images, depicting separately the effects of absorption, refraction and ultra-small-angle scattering of x-rays, and all three MIR images are virtually immune to degradation caused by scattering at higher angles. Although good results have been obtained using MIR, no quantitative model of the imaging process has yet been developed. In this paper, we present a theoretical prediction of the MIR image values in terms of fundamental physical properties of the object being imaged. We use radiative transport theory to model the beam propagation, and we model the object as a stratified medium containing discrete scattering particles. An important finding of our analysis is that the image values in all three MIR images are line integrals of various object parameters, which is an essential property for computed tomography to be achieved with conventional reconstruction methods. Our analysis also shows that MIR truly separates the effects of absorption, refraction and ultra-small-angle scattering for the case considered. We validate our analytical model using real and simulated imaging data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations95
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207