MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2027678377 · doi:10.1118/1.2760398

SU‐FF‐I‐21: An Empirical Method for Lag Correction in Cone‐Beam CT

2007· article· en· W2027678377 on OpenAlexaff
Noor Mail, D Moseley, Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomImage qualityArtifact (error)Cone beam computed tomographyOpticsLagMathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Image lag degrades image quality in cone‐beam CT (CBCT), resulting in contrast reduction, lack of CT number accuracy and uniformity, and skin‐line artifacts. This work investigates the magnitude of such degradation and demonstrates a lag correction method based on measured data from a system for CBCT guidance of radiotherapy (Elekta Synergy XVI). Method and Materials: Image lag and its relationship with various parameters including signal strength, photon energy and frame number was investigated for a PerkinElmer (RID1640) flat‐panel imager. An empirical lag correction based on measurements of image lag was developed to manage lag artifacts. The CatPhan phantom within an irregular body annulus was used to demonstrate the magnitude of artifacts before and after correction. Each projection was corrected for lag effects by subtracting previous projections weighted by the magnitude of image lag. The subtraction of previous projections was limited up to 51 frames due to uncorrelated noise. The reconstructed images before and after correction were analyzed for skin‐line and radar type artifacts, CT♯ accuracy, uniformity and contrast of several inserts. Reconstructed images were transformed into polar coordinates for analysis. Results: Experimental results illustrate that the first frame lag of the imager is less than 2.3%, and is independent of the kVp value (70–120 kV) and pixel saturation (20–80%). Lag correction improves the skin‐line artifact and reduces radar artifact by 40%. Contrast enhances by 20% and improves the CT♯ accuracy for water by 2.5%. It improves water uniformity by 5% compared to the nominal images. Conclusion: Lag artifacts can be reduced by correction of the projection images. Lag correction is most important for high contrast and irregularly shaped objects. For a circularly shaped object, lag correction does not improve the skin‐line artifact but can be useful for soft‐tissue visibility adjacent to bony anatomy. This research is sponsored by Elekta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→