MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049785422 · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2014.02.002

Model-based Iterative Reconstruction: A Promising Algorithm for Today's Computed Tomography Imaging

2014· article· en· W2049785422 on OpenAlexaff
Lu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
KeywordsComputed tomographyMedical physicsIterative reconstructionRadiation doseImage qualityComputer scienceMedical imagingAlgorithmMedicineTomographyRadiologyNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of its fast image acquisition and the rich diagnostic information it provides, computed tomography (CT) has gradually become a popular imaging modality among clinicians. Because CT scanners emit x-rays, the increased use of CT in clinical applications inevitably leads to increased medical radiation dose to the population. Because of the well-known cancer-inducing effects of high dose x-ray radiation, this increased dose has caused concerns among policy makers and general public that CT patients may be at a higher risk of developing cancer. Over the years, CT manufacturers have developed a variety of strategies to address this issue, the latest being a model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) algorithm. MBIR is an advanced CT algorithm that incorporates modeling of several key parameters that were omitted in earlier algorithms to reduce computational requirement and speed up scans. This review article examines the latest literature in the clinical CT field and discusses the general principles of MBIR, its dose and noise reduction potentials, its imaging characteristics, and its limitations. MBIR algorithm and its application in today's CT imaging will greatly reduce the radiation dose to patients and improve image quality for clinicians.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciencesSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207