MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982136624 · doi:10.1118/1.4914860

Systematic calibration of an integrated x‐ray and optical tomography system for preclinical radiation research

2015· article· en· W1982136624 on OpenAlexaff
Yidong Yang, Ken Kang‐Hsin Wang, Sohrab Eslami, Iulian Iordachita, Michael S. Patterson, John W. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImaging phantomCalibrationCone beam computed tomographyMedical physicsBiomedical engineeringTomographyMedical imagingOpticsComputer scienceNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsComputed tomographyRadiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) guided small animal radiation research platform (SARRP) has been developed for focal tumor irradiation, allowing laboratory researchers to test basic biological hypotheses that can modify radiotherapy outcomes in ways that were not feasible previously. CBCT provides excellent bone to soft tissue contrast, but is incapable of differentiating tumors from surrounding soft tissue. Bioluminescence tomography (BLT), in contrast, allows direct visualization of even subpalpable tumors and quantitative evaluation of tumor response. Integration of BLT with CBCT offers complementary image information, with CBCT delineating anatomic structures and BLT differentiating luminescent tumors. This study is to develop a systematic method to calibrate an integrated CBCT and BLT imaging system which can be adopted onboard the SARRP to guide focal tumor irradiation. METHODS: The integrated imaging system consists of CBCT, diffuse optical tomography (DOT), and BLT. The anatomy acquired from CBCT and optical properties acquired from DOT serve as a priori information for the subsequent BLT reconstruction. Phantoms were designed and procedures were developed to calibrate the CBCT, DOT/BLT, and the entire integrated system. Geometrical calibration was performed to calibrate the CBCT system. Flat field correction was performed to correct the nonuniform response of the optical imaging system. Absolute emittance calibration was performed to convert the camera readout to the emittance at the phantom or animal surface, which enabled the direct reconstruction of the bioluminescence source strength. Phantom and mouse imaging were performed to validate the calibration. RESULTS: All calibration procedures were successfully performed. Both CBCT of a thin wire and a euthanized mouse revealed no spatial artifact, validating the accuracy of the CBCT calibration. The absolute emittance calibration was validated with a 650 nm laser source, resulting in a 3.0% difference between simulated and measured signal. The calibration of the entire system was confirmed through the CBCT and BLT reconstruction of a bioluminescence source placed inside a tissue-simulating optical phantom. Using a spatial region constraint, the source position was reconstructed with less than 1 mm error and the source strength reconstructed with less than 24% error. CONCLUSIONS: A practical and systematic method has been developed to calibrate an integrated x-ray and optical tomography imaging system, including the respective CBCT and optical tomography system calibration and the geometrical calibration of the entire system. The method can be modified and adopted to calibrate CBCT and optical tomography systems that are operated independently or hybrid x-ray and optical tomography imaging systems.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.354 · 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
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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207