MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976911190 · doi:10.1118/1.2244682

Sci‐Fri PM Imaging‐07: The feasibility of using FBP to reconstruct electron densities from attenuation corrected scatter sinograms

2006· article· en· W1976911190 on OpenAlexaff
JE Alpuche Aviles, Stephen Pistorius

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttenuationDetectorPhysicsOpticsPhotonIterative reconstructionElectronCompton scatteringScatteringElectron densityComputational physicsComputer scienceNuclear physicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast CT is an emerging modality which aims to generate high quality 3D images. At these energies a large number of the incident x‐ray photons are scattered, resulting in a reduced contrast to noise ratio. As the reduction of dose and the detection of blurred calcifications and other poorly visible lesions are diagnostically important, we have developed an approach which uses both the primary and scattered photons to obtain low‐dose conventional CT and electron density (ρ e ) images. In the absence of attenuation and for a spherical detector, electron densities can be reconstructed using a mono‐energetic pencil beam and conventional Filtered Back Projection (FBP). In place of a spherical detector we have simulated a more practical detector ring with an angular width of 5 degrees and capable of measuring both scattered and primary photons. In practice, attenuation cannot be neglected and Attenuation Correction Factors (ACF) were calculated for each detector using an initial estimate of the electron density based on reconstructed linear attenuation coefficients. The corrected measurements were summed at each rotation and translation of the x‐ray beam to yield a scatter sinogram. This sinogram was processed using FBP to yield an image which provides, in an iterative manner, a new estimate of the electron density. This approach has shown that we are capable of reconstructing electron densities in simple geometries with errors ranging from 2 to 4%. Polyenergetic beam hardening and multiple scattering corrections are being investigated, for future incorporation into the algorithm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207