MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986653844 · doi:10.1118/1.2905031

Software‐based respiratory gating for small animal conebeam CT

2008· article· en· W1986653844 on OpenAlexafffund
Troy Farncombe

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsProjection (relational algebra)Image qualityImaging phantomComputer scienceBreathingImage resolutionImage registrationSIGNAL (programming language)Iterative reconstructionRespiratory monitoringComputer visionRespiratory systemNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceBiomedical engineeringMedicineImage (mathematics)AlgorithmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In volumetric CT imaging of small animals, the breathing motion of the lungs during the image acquisition process results in inconsistent projection data being acquired. When reconstructed, these inconsistent data may produce images with reduced spatial resolution and image contrast. In order to minimize these effects, various approaches have been utilized to capture the respiratory signal of the animals under study and to only obtain CT data at specific moments in the respiratory cycle. These approaches typically utilize hardware-based physiological monitoring equipment in order to record the respiratory signal and either prospectively or retrospectively correlate this signal with acquired CT projection data. In this work, a new method of CT respiratory gating is described that does not rely on external physiological monitoring. Rather, determination of the respiratory phase of the animal is performed by postprocessing the acquired projection data. With this approach, any CT projection data can be respiratory gated with minimal effort. Validation of the method has been performed using a dynamic phantom and accuracy in tidal volumes determined to be within 16%. Rats and mice have been scanned and processed using the proposed method and compared to physiological-based measurement. With the proposed method, image quality is significantly improved in addition to providing quantitative information regarding tidal lung volumes.

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)0.001
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 score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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