Beam hardening correction in CT myocardial perfusion measurement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a method for correcting beam hardening (BH) in cardiac CT perfusion imaging. The proposed algorithm works with reconstructed images instead of projection data. It applies thresholds to separate low (soft tissue) and high (bone and contrast) attenuating material in a CT image. The BH error in each projection is estimated by a polynomial function of the forward projection of the segmented image. The error image is reconstructed by back-projection of the estimated errors. A BH-corrected image is then obtained by subtracting a scaled error image from the original image. Phantoms were designed to simulate the BH artifacts encountered in cardiac CT perfusion studies of humans and animals that are most commonly used in cardiac research. These phantoms were used to investigate whether BH artifacts can be reduced with our approach and to determine the optimal settings, which depend upon the anatomy of the scanned subject, of the correction algorithm for patient and animal studies. The correction algorithm was also applied to correct BH in a clinical study to further demonstrate the effectiveness of our technique.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it