MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980086210 · doi:10.1118/1.3476159

Poster — Thur Eve — 54: Discrete Point Spread Functions for Electronic Portal Imaging Devices

2010· article· en· W1980086210 on OpenAlexaff
Eleodor Nichita, Orest Ostapiak, Theo Farrell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint spread functionKernel (algebra)Monte Carlo methodImage-guided radiation therapyAlgorithmPixelComputer visionArtificial intelligenceOpticsMathematicsMedical imagingComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EPID images are related to the fluence by a (possibly position‐dependent) Point Spread Function (PSF), or kernel. So far, work concerning finding the PSF for a certain EPID has relied on continuous representations. Since the EPID image itself corresponds to a discrete pixel grid, an interesting problem is to find a discrete PSF and do so based only on measurements, without resorting to Monte Carlo simulations. The present work concerns a method for finding such a discrete kernel for the simple case when the kernel is translation‐ and rotation‐invariant. The method relies on minimizing the difference, in a least‐squares sense, between the true acquired image and the image obtained with the calculated kernel. The method was tested using a simulated fluence and EPID image corresponding to a uniform rectangular field. The EPID image was generated by convolving the fluence with a known PSF. The developed algorithm was then tested by comparing the PSF shape produced by the algorithm (based on the image and fluence) with the actual PSF shape used to construct the EPID image. The two were found to match perfectly. A second test was performed by introducing a random error, uniformly distributed in the (−10%, +10%) interval, into the fluence used as input for the algorithm and then reconstructing the EPID image using the calculated PSF. The difference between the “true” EPID image and the reconstructed one was found to be smaller than 0.1% for the simulated field that was studied.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207