Noise aliasing and the 3D NEQ of flat-panel cone-beam CT: Effect of 2D/3D apertures and sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to tune an imaging system to be optimal for a specific task is an essential component of image quality. This article discusses the ability to tune the noise-equivalent quanta (NEQ) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) by managing noise aliasing through binning of data at different points in the reconstruction cascade. The noise power spectrum, modulation transfer function, and NEQ for CBCT are calculated using cascaded systems analysis. Binning is treated as a modular process, insertable between any two stages (in both the 2D projection domain and in the 3D reconstruction domain), consisting of the application of an aperture, followed by the resampling of data (which introduces noise aliasing). Several conditions were examined to demonstrate the validity of the model and to describe the effect on the image quality of some common reconstruction and visualization techniques. It was found that when downsampling data for increased reconstruction speed, binning in 2D results in a superior low-frequency NEQ, while binning in 3D results in a superior high-frequency NEQ. Furthermore, visualization procedures such as slice averaging were found not to degrade the NEQ provided the sampling interval is unchanged. Finally methods for reducing noise aliasing by oversampling are examined, and a method to eliminate noise aliasing without increasing reconstruction time is proposed. These results demonstrate the ease with which the NEQ of CBCT can be modified and thus optimized for specific tasks and show how such analysis can be used to improve 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".