MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061826790 · doi:10.1118/1.1514579

Technical note: Sinogram merging to compensate for truncation of projection data in tomotherapy imaging

2002· article· en· W2061826790 on OpenAlexaff
H. R. Hooper, B. G. Fallone

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomotherapyMultileaf collimatorCollimatorProjection (relational algebra)Computer scienceIterative reconstructionMedical imagingComputer visionOpticsOffset (computer science)Collimated lightImage-guided radiation therapyPhysicsArtificial intelligenceBeam (structure)Nuclear medicineLinear particle acceleratorRadiation therapyAlgorithmRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An advantage of helical tomotherapy radiation therapy systems is that on-line megavoltage computed tomography (CT) images can be reconstructed to verify patient positioning. One limitation of such systems is that the field-of-view (FOV) of the photon fan-beam is limited by the aperture size of the binary multileaf collimator (MLC) used to modulate treatment beams. For patients larger than the FOV the acquired sinograms will be truncated causing artifacts in the resultant megavoltage CT images. Computer simulations are used to demonstrate that such artifacts can be eliminated or at least reduced by merging appropriately acquired truncated fan-beam sinograms to form a nontruncated parallel-beam sinogram. The necessary fan-beam sinograms are acquired with the patient translated to different offset locations within the gantry. The parallel-beam sinogram is then used to reconstruct the final CT image. The increase in patient dose due to the acquisition of more than one fan-beam sinogram can be reduced by using properly designed binary MLC fields to block redundant projection rays.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207