MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2052386264 · doi:10.1118/1.2241678

WE‐C‐330A‐02: Cone‐Beam CT for Image‐Guided Head and Neck Surgery: Assessment of Dose and Image Quality Using a C‐Arm Prototype

2006· article· en· W2052386264 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Daly, J. H. Siewerdsen, D Moseley, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsocenterImaging phantomImage qualityCone beam computed tomographyNuclear medicineMedicineMedical imagingHead and neckDosimetryContrast-to-noise ratioComputed tomographyRadiologySurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To quantify radiation dose to patient and staff during intraoperative cone‐beam CT (CBCT)‐guided head and neck surgery, and investigate 3D imaging performance as a function of dose. Method and Materials: Dose and image quality measurements were acquired on a mobile C‐arm modified at our institution to provide flat‐panel CBCT. Imaging dose was measured in a custom‐built 16 cm cylindrical head phantom at four positions (isocenter, anterior, posterior, and lateral) as a function of kVp (80–120 kVp) and C‐arm trajectory (“tube‐under” and “tube‐over” 180° orbits). In‐room exposure was measured at positions around the operating table and up to 2 m from isocenter. 3D image quality was assessed in CBCT reconstructions of an anthropomorphic head phantom containing contrast‐detail spheres (11–103 HU; 1.6–12.7 mm). The contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) was evaluated across a broad range of dose (0.6–23.3 mGy). Results: Dose in the 16 cm phantom (100 kVp; “tube‐under” orbit) was 0.059 (isocenter), 0.022 (anterior), 0.10 (posterior), and 0.056 (lateral) mGy/mAs. Dose to the eyes (anterior) was reduced by a factor of 10 for “tube‐under” versus “tube‐over” orbits. In‐room exposure for a typical CBCT scan (∼10 mGy to isocenter) ranged from 33 mR at the anesthetist position, to <0.5 mR at 2 m from isocenter. CNR increased as the square root of dose, with excellent visualization of bony and soft‐tissue structures in the anthropomorphic head phantom achieved at ∼3mGy and ∼10mGy, respectively. Conclusion: The prototype C‐arm CBCT system demonstrates excellent visualization of bony and soft‐tissue structures at dose levels low enough for repeat intraoperative imaging. High‐performance image‐guidance with respect to bony and soft‐tissue anatomy was achieved at doses <∼3mGy and <∼10mGy, respectively. For guidance of head and neck surgery, significant dose sparing to the patient's eyes (a factor of 10) is achieved using a “tube‐under” (rather than “tube‐over”) 180deg; orbit.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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