MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013192387 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/12/4297

Scout-view assisted interior micro-CT

2013· article· en· W2013192387 on OpenAlexaff
Kriti Sen Sharma, Christian Holzner, Dragoş M. Vasilescu, Xin Jin, Shree Narayanan, Masoud Agah, Eric A. Hoffman, Hengyong Yu, Ge Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer scienceDetectorSample (material)Field of viewComputer visionTomographyArtificial intelligenceResolution (logic)Position (finance)Overhead (engineering)Iterative reconstructionOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micro computed tomography (micro-CT) is a widely-used imaging technique. A challenge of micro-CT is to quantitatively reconstruct a sample larger than the field-of-view (FOV) of the detector. This scenario is characterized by truncated projections and associated image artifacts. However, for such truncated scans, a low resolution scout scan with an increased FOV is frequently acquired so as to position the sample properly. This study shows that the otherwise discarded scout scans can provide sufficient additional information to uniquely and stably reconstruct the interior region of interest. Two interior reconstruction methods are designed to utilize the multi-resolution data without significant computational overhead. While most previous studies used numerically truncated global projections as interior data, this study uses truly hybrid scans where global and interior scans were carried out at different resolutions. Additionally, owing to the lack of standard interior micro-CT phantoms, we designed and fabricated novel interior micro-CT phantoms for this study to provide means of validation for our algorithms. Finally, two characteristic samples from separate studies were scanned to show the effect of our reconstructions. The presented methods show significant improvements over existing reconstruction algorithms.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207