MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984694106 · doi:10.1118/1.3352835

Design and performance of a respiratory amplitude gating device for PET/CT imaging

2010· article· en· W1984694106 on OpenAlexaff
Guoping Chang, Ting‐Ting Chang, John W. Clark, Osama Mawlawi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOccupational and Environmental Medical Association of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical imagingGatingAmplitudeMedical physicsNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsOpticsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Recently, the authors proposed a free-breathing amplitude gating (FBAG) technique for PET/CT scanners. The implementation of this technique required specialized hardware and software components that were specifically designed to interface with commercial respiratory gating devices to generate the necessary triggers required for the FBAG technique. The objective of this technical note is to introduce an in-house device that integrates all the necessary hardware and software components as well as tracks the patient's respiratory motion to realize amplitude gating on PET/CT scanners. METHODS: The in-house device is composed of a piezoelectric transducer coupled to a data-acquisition system in order to monitor the respiratory waveform. A LABVIEW program was designed to control the data-acquisition device and inject triggers into the PET list stream whenever the detected respiratory amplitude crossed a predetermined amplitude range. A timer was also programmed to stop the scan when the accumulated time within the selected amplitude range REACHED a user-set interval. This device was tested using a volunteer and a phantom study. RESULTS: The results from the volunteer and phantom studies showed that the in-house device can detect similar respiratory signals as commercially available respiratory gating systems and is able to generate the necessary triggers to suppress respiratory motion artifacts. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed in-house device can be used to implement the FBAG technique in current PET/CT scanners.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207