MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065315977 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/14/017

Does kV–MV dual-energy computed tomography have an advantage in determining proton stopping power ratios in patients?

2011· article· en· W2065315977 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Research Council CanadaNational Institutes of HealthVarian Medical Systems
KeywordsDigital Enhanced Cordless TelecommunicationsPhysicsNuclear medicineBeam (structure)Proton therapyNoise (video)OpticsEnergy (signal processing)Materials scienceComputer scienceMedicineTelecommunicationsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional kilovoltage (kV) x-ray-based dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging using two different x-ray energy spectra is sensitive to image noise and beam hardening effects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the theoretical advantage of the DECT method for determining proton stopping power ratios (SPRs) using a combination of kV and megavoltage (MV) x-ray energies. We investigated three representative x-ray energy pairs: 100 and 140 kVp comprised the kV-kV pair, 100 kVp and 1 MV comprised the kV-MV pair, and two 1 MV x-ray beams-one with and one without external filtration-comprised the MV-MV pair. The SPRs of 34 human tissues were determined using the DECT method with these three x-ray energy pairs. Small perturbations were introduced into the CT numbers and x-ray spectra used for the DECT calculation to simulate the effects of random noise and beam hardening. An error propagation analysis was performed on the DECT calculation algorithm to investigate the propagation of CT number uncertainty to final SPR estimation and to suggest the best x-ray energy combination. We found that the DECT method using each of the three beam pairs achieved similar accuracy in determining the SPRs of human tissues in ideal conditions. However, when CT number uncertainties and artifacts such as imaging noise and beam hardening effects were considered, the kV-MV DECT improved the accuracy of SPR estimation substantially over the kV-kV or MV-MV DECT methods. Furthermore, our error propagation analysis showed that the combination of 100 kVp and 1 MV beams was close to the optimal selection when using the DECT method to determine SPRs. Overall, the kV-MV combination makes the DECT method more robust in resolving the effective atomic numbers for biological tissues than the traditional kV-kV DECT method.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.245 · 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