MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071026440 · doi:10.1118/1.3622611

A method for patient dose reduction in dynamic contrast enhanced CT study

2011· article· en· W2071026440 on OpenAlexafffund
Sun Mo Kim, Masoom A. Haider, Michael Milosevic, David A. Jaffray, Ivan Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Medical imagingContrast (vision)Computed tomographyNuclear medicineMedicineMedical physicsRadiologyComputer scienceComputer visionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In dynamic contrast enhanced CT (DCE-CT) study, prolonged CT scanning with high temporal resolution is required to give accurate and precise estimates of kinetic parameters. However, such scanning protocol could lead to substantial radiation dose to the patient. A novel method is proposed to reduce radiation dose to patient, while maintaining high accuracy for kinetic parameter estimates in DCE-CT study. METHODS: The method is based on a previous investigation that the arterial impulse response (AIR) in DCE-CT study can be predicted using a population-based scheme. In the proposed method, DCE-CT scanning is performed with relatively low temporal resolution, hence, giving rise to reduction in patient dose. A novel method is proposed to estimate the arterial input function (AIF) based on the coarsely sampled AIF. By using the estimated AIF in the tracer kinetic analysis of the coarsely sampled DCE-CT study, the calculated kinetic parameters are able to achieve a high degree of accuracy. The method was tested on a DCE-CT data set of 48 patients with cervical cancer scanned at high temporal resolution. A random cohort of 34 patients was chosen to construct the orthonormal bases of the AIRs via singular value decomposition method. The determined set of orthonormal bases was used to fit the AIFs in the second cohort (14 patients) at varying levels of down sampling. For each dataset in the second cohort, the estimated AIF was used for kinetic analyses of the modified Tofts and adiabatic tissue homogeneity models for each of the down-sampling schemes between intervals from 2 to 15 s. The results were compared with analyses done with the "raw" down-sampled AIF. RESULTS: In the first group of 34 patients, there were 11 orthonormal bases identified to describe the AIRs. The AIFs in the second group were estimated in high accuracy based on the 11 orthonormal bases established in the first group along with down-sampled AIFs. Using the 11 orthonormal bases, the estimated AIFs for the second group were found to have an averaged maximal percentage error of 3.4% ± 7.5% in all sampling schemes up to 15 s. The results of kinetic analysis with the proposed method compared with down sampling alone showed that the proposed method is superior in maintaining the accuracy in volume transfer constant (K(trans) ) after 9 s down-sampling interval, blood volume (v(b) ) for almost all down-sampling intervals, and blood flow (F) after 11 s down-sampling interval. The preliminary results suggested that the proposed method is able to support scanning intervals of 10-15 s at a cost of 6.2%-10.0% loss in accuracy of K(trans) and 10.9%-19.4% in v(b), and the scanning intervals of 12-15 s at a cost of 9.7%-14.6% for F in DEC-CT studies for patients with cervix cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method of AIF estimation allows low scanning frequency in DCE-CT study to reduce radiation dose to patient, while maintaining relatively high accuracy in the kinetic parameter estimates. The initial results suggested that the method is applicable for DCE-CT studies for patients with cervical cancer.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.360
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207