Computation of mass-density images from x-ray refraction-angle images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the possibility of computing quantitatively accurate images of mass density variations in soft tissue. This is a challenging task, because density variations in soft tissue, such as the breast, can be very subtle. Beginning from an image of refraction angle created by either diffraction-enhanced imaging (DEI) or multiple-image radiography (MIR), we estimate the mass-density image using a constrained least squares (CLS) method. The CLS algorithm yields accurate density estimates while effectively suppressing noise. Our method improves on an analytical method proposed by Hasnah et al (2005 Med. Phys. 32 549-52), which can produce significant artefacts when even a modest level of noise is present. We present a quantitative evaluation study to determine the accuracy with which mass density can be determined in the presence of noise. Based on computer simulations, we find that the mass-density estimation error can be as low as a few per cent for typical density variations found in the breast. Example images computed from less-noisy real data are also shown to illustrate the feasibility of the technique. We anticipate that density imaging may have application in assessment of water content of cartilage resulting from osteoarthritis, in evaluation of bone density, and in mammographic interpretation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".