MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993323376 · doi:10.1118/1.2349687

Intraoperative cone‐beam CT for guidance of head and neck surgery: Assessment of dose and image quality using a C‐arm prototype

2006· article· en· W1993323376 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael J. Daly, Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen, D Moseley, David A. Jaffray, Jonathan C. Irish

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsIsocenterImaging phantomCone beam computed tomographyNuclear medicineMedicineDosimetryImage qualityFlat panel detectorMedical imagingRadiologyComputed tomographyDetectorOpticsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with a flat-panel detector represents a promising modality for intraoperative imaging in interventional procedures, demonstrating sub-mm three-dimensional (3D) spatial resolution and soft-tissue visibility. Measurements of patient dose and in-room exposure for CBCT-guided head and neck surgery are reported, and the 3D imaging performance as a function of dose and other acquisition/reconstruction parameters is investigated. Measurements were performed on a mobile isocentric C-arm (Siemens PowerMobil) modified in collaboration with Siemens Medical Solutions (Erlangen, Germany) to provide flat-panel CBCT. Imaging dose was measured in a custom-built 16 cm cylindrical head phantom at four positions (isocenter, anterior, posterior, and lateral) as a function of kVp (80-120 kVp) and C-arm trajectory ("tube-under" and "tube-over" half-rotation orbits). At 100 kVp, for example ("tube-under" orbit), the imaging dose was 0.059 (isocenter), 0.022 (anterior), 0.10 (posterior), and 0.056 (lateral) mGy/ mAs, with scans at approximately 50 and approximately 170 mAs typical for visualization of bony and soft-tissue structures, respectively. Dose to radiosensitive structures (viz., the eyes and thyroid) were considered in particular: significant dose sparing to the eyes (a factor of 5) was achieved using a "tube-under" (rather than "tube-over") half-rotation orbit; a thyroid shield (0.5 mm Pb-equivalent) gave moderate reduction in thyroid dose due to x-ray scatter outside the primary field of view. In-room exposure was measured at positions around the operating table and up to 2 m from isocenter. A typical CBCT scan (10 mGy to isocenter) gave in-air exposure ranging from 29 mR (0.26 mSv) at 35 cm from isocenter, to <0.5 mR (<0.005 mSv) at 2 m from isocenter. Three-dimensional (3D) image quality was assessed in CBCT reconstructions of an anthropomorphic head phantom containing contrast-detail spheres (11-103 HU; 1.6-12.7 mm) and a natural human skeleton. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was evaluated across a broad range of dose (0.6-23.3 mGy). CNR increased as the square root of dose, with excellent visualization of bony and soft-tissue structures achieved at approximately 3 mGy (0.10 mSv) and approximately 10 mGy (0.35 mSv), respectively. The prototype C-arm demonstrates CBCT image quality sufficient for guidance of head and neck procedures based on soft-tissue and bony anatomy at dose levels low enough for repeat intraoperative imaging, with total dose over the course of the procedure comparable to or less than the effective dose of a typical (2 mSv) diagnostic CT of the head.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations205
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207