A local shift‐variant Fourier model and experimental validation of circular cone‐beam computed tomography artifacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large field of view cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is being achieved using circular source and detector trajectories. These circular trajectories are known to collect insufficient data for accurate image reconstruction. Although various descriptions of the missing information exist, the manifestation of this lack of data in reconstructed images is generally nonintuitive. One model predicts that the missing information corresponds to a shift-variant cone of missing frequency components. This description implies that artifacts depend on the imaging geometry, as well as the frequency content of the imaged object. In particular, objects with a large proportion of energy distributed over frequency bands that coincide with the missing cone will be most compromised. These predictions were experimentally verified by imaging small, localized objects (acrylic spheres, stacked disks) at varying positions in the object space and observing the frequency spectrums of the reconstructions. Measurements of the internal angle of the missing cone agreed well with theory, indicating a right circular cone for points on the rotation axis, and an oblique, circular cone elsewhere. In the former case, the largest internal angle with respect to the vertical axis corresponds to the (half) cone angle of the CBCT system (typically approximately 5 degrees - 7.5 degrees in IGRT). Object recovery was also found to be strongly dependent on the distribution of the object's frequency spectrum relative to the missing cone, as expected. The observed artifacts were also reproducible via removal of local frequency components, further supporting the theoretical model. Larger objects with differing internal structures (cellular polyurethane, solid acrylic) were also imaged and interpreted with respect to the previous results. Finally, small animal data obtained using a clinical CBCT scanner were observed for evidence of the missing cone. This study provides insight into the influence of incomplete data collection on the appearance of objects imaged in large field of view CBCT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".