MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071684018 · doi:10.1117/12.844581

Image reconstruction in cardiac interventions using a small flat-panel detector

2010· article· en· W2071684018 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pascal Thériault-Lauzier, Jie Tang, Zhihua Qi, Guang‐Hong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTruncation (statistics)Iterative reconstructionA priori and a posterioriDetectorProjection (relational algebra)Flat panel detectorPixelComputer scienceAlgorithmInverse problemNeurovascular bundleConvergence (economics)Cardiac imagingComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C-arm CT is used in neurovascular interventions where a large flat panel detector is used to acquire cone-beam projection data. In this case, data truncation problems due to the limited detector size are mild. When the cone beam CT method is applied to cardiac interventions severe data truncation artifacts reduce the clinical utility of the reconstructions. However, accurate reconstruction is still possible given a priori knowledge of the reconstruction values within a small region inside the FOV. Several groups have studied the case of the interior problem where data is truncated from all views. In this paper, we applied these new mathematical discoveries to C-arm cardiac cone-beam CT to demonstrate that accurate image reconstruction may be achieved for cardiac interventions. The method is applied to iteratively reconstruct the image volume such that it satisfies several physical conditions. In this work, the algorithm is applied to data from in-vivo cardiac canine studies collected using a clinical C-arm system. It is demonstrated that the algorithm converges well to the reconstruction values of non-truncated data reconstructed using the FDK algorithm. Furthermore, proper convergence is achieved by using only an estimate of the average value within a subregion as a priori information (i.e. the exact value at each pixel in the a priori region need not be known). Two methods for obtaining a priori information are compared.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207