MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051728426 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2006.353714

An analytical scatter correction for singles-mode transmission data in PET

2006· article· en· W2051728426 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Vandervoort, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

Venue2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomPhysicsTransmission (telecommunications)Compton scatteringPhotonOpticsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a scatter correction for singles-mode transmission data and its implementation as part of an iterative image reconstruction algorithm (OSTR). We compared our scatter calculation data with previously validated simulation data for three uniform water cylinders (radii of 25, 30 and 45 mm) using68Ge (a positron emitter) and57Co (122 keV photon emitter) transmission sources. Our scatter correction correctly predicts the contribution from single-scattered (one Compton interaction) photons to the sinogram data. Our correction also provides good agreement for the percent scatter fraction (SF) per sinogram for all phantom sizes and both transmission sources. We applied our scatter correction to experimental data from the microPET Focus 120 small animal scanner for three different sized uniform water cylinders and for a non-uniform phantom consisting of water, Teflon and air. The reconstructed linear attenuation coefficients (mu-values) agreed with expected values to within 4% for both the68Ge and57Co transmission sources and all phantoms. Using a 2.2 GHz processor our scatter correction requires between 7 to 20 minutes of CPU time depending on the phantom size and source used. This extra calculation time does not seem unreasonable considering that, without scatter corrections, errors in the reconstructed mu-values were between 28 to 40% depending on the phantom size and transmission source used. Simple rescaling or segmentation of uncorrected mu-map images does not provide an adequate alternative to scatter correction, since these errors depend on the radial position within an image slice and can be on the order of the difference between the mu-values for water and bone.

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)0.008
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.355
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference RecordSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207