MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972951903 · doi:10.1118/1.3615058

Development of a dynamic flow imaging phantom for dynamic contrast‐enhanced CT

2011· article· en· W1972951903 on OpenAlexafffund
Brandon Driscoll, H. Keller, Catherine Coolens

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomReproducibilityComputer scienceMedical imagingDynamic imagingBiomedical engineeringPerfusion scanningNuclear medicineImage processingPerfusionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMedicineRadiologyDigital image processingImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast enhanced CT (DCE-CT) studies with modeling of blood flow and tissue perfusion are becoming more prevalent in the clinic, with advances in wide volume CT scanners allowing the imaging of an entire organ with sub-second image frequency and sub-millimeter accuracy. Wide-spread implementation of perfusion DCE-CT, however, is pending fundamental validation of the quantitative parameters that result from dynamic contrast imaging and perfusion modeling. Therefore, the goal of this work was to design and construct a novel dynamic flow imaging phantom capable of producing typical clinical time-attenuation curves (TACs) with the purpose of developing a framework for the quantification and validation of DCE-CT measurements and kinetic modeling under realistic flow conditions. METHODS: The phantom is based on a simple two-compartment model and was printed using a 3D printer. Initial analysis of the phantom involved simple flow measurements and progressed to DCE-CT experiments in order to test the phantoms range and reproducibility. The phantom was then utilized to generate realistic input TACs. A phantom prediction model was developed to compute the input and output TACs based on a given set of five experimental (control) parameters: pump flow rate, injection pump flow rate, injection contrast concentration, and both control valve positions. The prediction model is then inversely applied to determine the control parameters necessary to generate a set of desired input and output TACs. A protocol was developed and performed using the phantom to investigate image noise, partial volume effects and CT number accuracy under realistic flow conditions. RESULTS: This phantom and its surrounding flow system are capable of creating a wide range of physiologically relevant TACs, which are reproducible with minimal error between experiments (sigma/micro < 5% for all metrics investigated). The dynamic flow phantom was capable of producing input and output TACs using either step function based or typical clinical arterial input function (AIF) inputs. The measured TACs were in excellent agreement with predictions across all comparison metrics with goodness of fit (R2) for the input function between 0.95 and 0.98, while the maximum enhancement differed by no more than 3.3%. The predicted output functions were similarly accurate producing R2 values between 0.92 and 0.99 and maximum enhancement to within 9.0%. The effect of ROI size on the arterial input function (AIF) was investigated in order to determine an operating range of ROI sizes which were minimally affected by noise for small dimensions and partial volume effects for large dimensions. It was possible to establish the measurement sensitivity of both the Toshiba (ROI radius range from 1.5 to 3.2 mm "low dose", 1.4 to 3.0 mm "high dose") and GE scanner (1.5 to 2.6 mm "low dose", 1.1 to 3.4 mm "high dose"). This application of the phantom also provides the ability to evaluate the effect of the AIF error on kinetic model parameter predictions. CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic flow imaging phantom is capable of producing accurate and reproducible results which can be predicted and quantified. This results in a unique tool for perfusion DCE-CT validation under realistic flow conditions which can be applied not only to compare different CT scanners and imaging protocols but also to provide a ground truth across multimodality dynamic imaging given its MRI and PET compatibility.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207