TU‐D‐I‐611‐06: A Direct, Empirical Method for X‐Ray Scatter Correction in Digital Radiography and Cone‐Beam CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: X‐ray scatter poses a severe physical limitation to image quality in cone‐beam CT (CBCT), resulting in contrast reduction, image artifacts, and lack of CT number accuracy. We report and demonstrate the performance of a novel scatter correction method in which scatter fluence is estimated directly in each projection from pixel values at the edge of the detector behind the collimator leaves. Method and Materials: The algorithm operates on the assumption that signal behind the collimator leaves is attributable to x‐ray scatter. The 2D scatter fluence is estimated by interpolating between pixel values measured along the top and bottom edges of the detector behind the collimator leaves. The resulting scatter fluence is subtracted from each projection to yield primary‐only images for CBCT reconstruction. Performance was investigated in phantom experiments on an experimental CBCT benchtop, and the effect on image quality was demonstrated in patient images (head, chest, and pelvis sites) obtained on a preclinical system for CBCT‐guided radiation therapy. Results: The algorithm provides significant reduction in scatter artifacts without compromise in contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR) — e.g., Head: cupping reduced from 10% to 2%, while breast‐to‐water CNR improved from 5.2% to 7.8%; Body: cupping reduced from 42% to 26% without change in CNR. Patient images demonstrate increased uniformity, accuracy, and contrast, with slightly increased noise (net increase in CNR) in all of the sites investigated. Qualitative evaluation illustrates that soft‐tissue structures that are otherwise undetectable are clearly delineated in scatter‐corrected reconstructions. Conclusion: The algorithm provides a robust method for x‐ray scatter fluence estimation and correction in CBCT. Operating from a single assumption without prior information, analytical modeling, or Monte Carlo, the technique is easily incorporated as a preprocessing step in CBCT reconstruction. Quantitative evaluation in phantoms and pre‐clinical evaluation in patients demonstrates significant artifact reduction without degradation in CNR.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".