Optimization of Image Quality in Retrospective Respiratory-Gated Micro-CT for Quantitative Measurements of Lung Function in Free-Breathing Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To optimize scan time and X-ray dose with no loss of image quality for retrospectively gated micro-CT scans of free-breathing rats. Methods: Five free-breathing rats were scanned using a dynamic micro-CT scanner over 10 continuous gantry rotations (50 seconds and entrance dose of 0.28 Gy). The in-phase projection views were selected and reconstructed, representing peak inspiration and end expiration from all 10 rotations and progressively fewer rotations. A least error method was also used to ensure that all angular positions were filled. Image quality and reproducibility for physiological measurements were compared for the two techniques. Results: The least error approach underestimated the lung volume, air content in the lung at peak inspiration, and tidal volume. Other measurements showed no differences between the projection-sorting techniques. Conclusions: Seven gantry rotations (35 seconds and 0.2 Gy dose) proved to be the optimal protocol for both the in-phase images and the least error images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".