MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983121548 · doi:10.1118/1.598854

Three‐dimensional computed tomographic reconstruction using a C‐arm mounted XRII: Image‐based correction of gantry motion nonidealities

2000· article· en· W1983121548 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Fahrig, David W. Holdsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomStandard deviationIterative reconstructionPixelInterpolation (computer graphics)CalibrationRotation (mathematics)DetectorPhysicsPerpendicularOpticsProjection (relational algebra)TrajectoryLinear interpolationMathematicsGeometryComputer visionAlgorithmMathematical analysisMotion (physics)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The image quality of 3D reconstructions produced using a C-arm mounted XRII depends on precise determination of the geometric parameters that describe the detector system in the laboratory frame of reference. We have designed a simplified calibration system that depends on images of a metal sphere, acquired during rotation of the gantry through 200 degrees. Angle-dependent shift corrections are obtained, accounting for nonideal motion in two directions: perpendicular to the axis of rotation and tangential to the circular trajectory (tau), and parallel to the axis of rotation (xi). Projection images are corrected prior to reconstruction using a simple shift-interpolation algorithm. We show that the motion of the gantry is highly reproducible during acquisitions within one day (mean standard deviation in tau and xi is 0.11 mm and 0.08 mm, respectively), and over 21 months (mean standard deviation in tau and xi is 0.10 mm and 0.06 mm, respectively). Reconstruction of a small-bead phantom demonstrates uniformity of the correction algorithm over the full volume of the reconstruction [standard deviation of full-width-half-maximum of the beads is approximately 0.25 pixels (0.13 mm) over the volume of reconstruction]. Our approach provides a simple correction technique that can be applied when trajectory deviations are significant relative to the pixel size of the detector but small relative to the detector field of view, and when the fan angle of the acquisition geometry is small (<20 degrees). A comparison with other calibration techniques in the literature is provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.303
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations110
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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