MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981674468 · doi:10.1063/1.4754124

Synchrotron-based coherent scatter x-ray projection imaging using an array of monoenergetic pencil beams

2012· article· en· W1981674468 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karl Landheer, Paul C. Johns

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImaging phantomOpticsPixelPhysicsProjection (relational algebra)ScatteringMedical imagingSynchrotron radiationDetectorComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional projection x-ray imaging utilizes only the information from the primary photons. Low-angle coherent scatter images can be acquired simultaneous to the primary images and provide additional information. In medical applications scatter imaging can improve x-ray contrast or reduce dose using information that is currently discarded in radiological images to augment the transmitted radiation information. Other applications include non-destructive testing and security. A system at the Canadian Light Source synchrotron was configured which utilizes multiple pencil beams (up to five) to create both primary and coherent scatter projection images, simultaneously. The sample was scanned through the beams using an automated step-and-shoot setup. Pixels were acquired in a hexagonal lattice to maximize packing efficiency. The typical pitch was between 1.0 and 1.6 mm. A Maximum Likelihood-Expectation Maximization-based iterative method was used to disentangle the overlapping information from the flat panel digital x-ray detector. The pixel value of the coherent scatter image was generated by integrating the radial profile (scatter intensity versus scattering angle) over an angular range. Different angular ranges maximize the contrast between different materials of interest. A five-beam primary and scatter image set (which had a pixel beam time of 990 ms and total scan time of 56 min) of a porcine phantom is included. For comparison a single-beam coherent scatter image of the same phantom is included. The muscle-fat contrast was 0.10 ± 0.01 and 1.16 ± 0.03 for the five-beam primary and scatter images, respectively. The air kerma was measured free in air using aluminum oxide optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters. The total area-averaged air kerma for the scan was measured to be 7.2 ± 0.4 cGy although due to difficulties in small-beam dosimetry this number could be inaccurate.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207