MO-E-217A-01: Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography - Physical Aspects and QA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the current state of dual energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography, to discuss those aspects of its operation that require evaluation or monitoring and to propose elements of a program for quality assurance of such systems. METHODS: The principles of dual-energy contrast imaging will be discussed and tools and techniques for assessment of performance will be described. RESULTS: Many of the elements affecting image quality and dose performance in digital mammography (eg noise, system linearity, consistency of x-ray output and detector performance, artifacts) remain important. In addition, the ability to register images can influence the resultant image quality. The maintenance of breast compression thickness during the imaging procedure and calibration of the system to allow quantification of iodine in the breast represent new challenges to quality assurance. CONCLUSION: CESM provides a means of acquiring new information regarding tumor angiogenesis and may reveal some cancers that will not be detectable on digital mammography. It may also better demonstrate the extent of disease. The medical physicist must understand the dependence of image quality on physical factors. Implementation of a relevant QA program will be required if the promise of this new modality is to be delivered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".