MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977480557 · doi:10.1118/1.4740193

Sci—Fri AM: Imaging — 07: Symmetric geometric transfer matrix partial volume correction technique for emission tomography: Principle, validation, and robustness

2012· article· en· W1977480557 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Sattarivand, Maggie Kusano, Ian Poon, Curtis Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Imaging phantomSingle-photon emission computed tomographyVoxelPartial volumePositron emission tomographyPoint spread functionAlgorithmTomographyImage resolutionNoise (video)Computer sciencePhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceOpticsNuclear medicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial volume correction (PVC) is often needed to correct for limited spatial resolution in quantitative Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) studies. In conventional region-based PVC methods, spill over between regions segmented from coregistered computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) images is accounted for by calculating regional spread functions (RSFs) in a geometric transfer matrix (GTM) framework. This paper describes a new analytically derived symmetric GTM (sGTM) method that considers spill over between RSFs rather than between regions. The sGTM is mathematically equivalent to Labbe's method, however it is region-based rather than voxel-based and it avoids handling large matrices. The sGTM method was validated using an MR-based 3D digital brain phantom and a physical phantom containing spheres 5 mm to 30 mm in diameter. The sGTM method was compared to the GTM method in terms of accuracy, precision, noise propagation, and robustness, i.e. effects of mis-registration or point spread function (PSF) estimation errors. The results showed that the sGTM method has accuracy similar to that of the GTM method, and within 5% of the true value. However, the sGTM method showed better precision and noise propagation than the GTM method, especially for spheres smaller than 13 mm. Moreover, the sGTM method was more robust than the GTM method when misregistration or errors in estimates of PSF occurred. In conclusion, the sGTM method was analytically derived and validated and shown to exhibit better noise characteristics and robustness compared to the GTM method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.035

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207