MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030108392 · doi:10.1118/1.4835515

Model-based PSF and MTF estimation and validation from skeletal clinical CT images

2013· article· en· W2030108392 on OpenAlexafffund
Amirreza Pakdel, James G. Mainprize, Normand Robert, Jeffery A. Fialkov, Cari Whyne

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoint spread functionOptical transfer functionOpticsGaussian functionGaussianNuclear medicineKernel (algebra)Image resolutionIterative reconstructionPhysicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: A method was developed to correct for systematic errors in estimating the thickness of thin bones due to image blurring in CT images using bone interfaces to estimate the point-spread-function (PSF). This study validates the accuracy of the PSFs estimated using said method from various clinical CT images featuring cortical bones. METHODS: Gaussian PSFs, characterized by a different extent in the z (scan) direction than in the x and y directions were obtained using our method from 11 clinical CT scans of a cadaveric craniofacial skeleton. These PSFs were estimated for multiple combinations of scanning parameters and reconstruction methods. The actual PSF for each scan setting was measured using the slanted-slit technique within the image slice plane and the longitudinal axis. The Gaussian PSF and the corresponding modulation transfer function (MTF) are compared against the actual PSF and MTF for validation. RESULTS: The differences (errors) between the actual and estimated full-width half-max (FWHM) of the PSFs were 0.09 ± 0.05 and 0.14 ± 0.11 mm for the xy and z axes, respectively. The overall errors in the predicted frequencies measured at 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, and 5% MTF levels were 0.06 ± 0.07 and 0.06 ± 0.04 cycles/mm for the xy and z axes, respectively. The accuracy of the estimates was dependent on whether they were reconstructed with a standard kernel (Toshiba's FC68, mean error of 0.06 ± 0.05 mm, MTF mean error 0.02 ± 0.02 cycles/mm) or a high resolution bone kernel (Toshiba's FC81, PSF FWHM error 0.12 ± 0.03 mm, MTF mean error 0.09 ± 0.08 cycles/mm). CONCLUSIONS: The method is accurate in 3D for an image reconstructed using a standard reconstruction kernel, which conforms to the Gaussian PSF assumption but less accurate when using a high resolution bone kernel. The method is a practical and self-contained means of estimating the PSF in clinical CT images featuring cortical bones, without the need phantoms or any prior knowledge about the scanner-specific parameters.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207