MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990157619 · doi:10.1118/1.4903260

Efficient scatter distribution estimation and correction in CBCT using concurrent Monte Carlo fitting

2014· article· en· W1990157619 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Bootsma, Frank Verhaegen, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchMcGill UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomData setProjection (relational algebra)Cone beam computed tomographyComputer scienceDetectorAlgorithmPixelMedical imagingCalibrationImage qualityMathematicsOpticsArtificial intelligencePhysicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)Computed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: X-ray scatter is a significant impediment to image quality improvements in cone-beam CT (CBCT). The authors present and demonstrate a novel scatter correction algorithm using a scatter estimation method that simultaneously combines multiple Monte Carlo (MC) CBCT simulations through the use of a concurrently evaluated fitting function, referred to as concurrent MC fitting (CMCF). METHODS: The CMCF method uses concurrently run MC CBCT scatter projection simulations that are a subset of the projection angles used in the projection set, P, to be corrected. The scattered photons reaching the detector in each MC simulation are simultaneously aggregated by an algorithm which computes the scatter detector response, SMC. SMC is fit to a function, SF, and if the fit of SF is within a specified goodness of fit (GOF), the simulations are terminated. The fit, SF, is then used to interpolate the scatter distribution over all pixel locations for every projection angle in the set P. The CMCF algorithm was tested using a frequency limited sum of sines and cosines as the fitting function on both simulated and measured data. The simulated data consisted of an anthropomorphic head and a pelvis phantom created from CT data, simulated with and without the use of a compensator. The measured data were a pelvis scan of a phantom and patient taken on an Elekta Synergy platform. The simulated data were used to evaluate various GOF metrics as well as determine a suitable fitness value. The simulated data were also used to quantitatively evaluate the image quality improvements provided by the CMCF method. A qualitative analysis was performed on the measured data by comparing the CMCF scatter corrected reconstruction to the original uncorrected and corrected by a constant scatter correction reconstruction, as well as a reconstruction created using a set of projections taken with a small cone angle. RESULTS: Pearson's correlation, r, proved to be a suitable GOF metric with strong correlation with the actual error of the scatter fit, SF. Fitting the scatter distribution to a limited sum of sine and cosine functions using a low-pass filtered fast Fourier transform provided a computationally efficient and accurate fit. The CMCF algorithm reduces the number of photon histories required by over four orders of magnitude. The simulated experiments showed that using a compensator reduced the computational time by a factor between 1.5 and 1.75. The scatter estimates for the simulated and measured data were computed between 35-93 s and 114-122 s, respectively, using 16 Intel Xeon cores (3.0 GHz). The CMCF scatter correction improved the contrast-to-noise ratio by 10%-50% and reduced the reconstruction error to under 3% for the simulated phantoms. CONCLUSIONS: The novel CMCF algorithm significantly reduces the computation time required to estimate the scatter distribution by reducing the statistical noise in the MC scatter estimate and limiting the number of projection angles that must be simulated. Using the scatter estimate provided by the CMCF algorithm to correct both simulated and real projection data showed improved reconstruction image quality.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207