MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076347048 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/12/3981

Quantification accuracy and partial volume effect in dependence of the attenuation correction of a state-of-the-art small animal PET scanner

2012· article· en· W2076347048 on OpenAlexaff
Julia G. Mannheim, Martin S. Judenhofer, Andreas M. Schmid, Julia Tillmanns, Detlef Stiller, Vesna Sossi, Bernd J. Pichler

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersKWF Kankerbestrijding
KeywordsPartial volumeCorrection for attenuationScannerAttenuationVolume (thermodynamics)Transmission (telecommunications)Nuclear medicineRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceContrast (vision)Accuracy and precisionField of viewOpticsPhysicsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMaterials scienceStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantification accuracy and partial volume effect (PVE) of the Siemens Inveon PET scanner were evaluated. The influence of transmission source activities (40 and 160 MBq) on the quantification accuracy and the PVE were determined. Dynamic range, object size and PVE for different sphere sizes, contrast ratios and positions in the field of view (FOV) were evaluated. The acquired data were reconstructed using different algorithms and correction methods. The activity level of the transmission source and the total emission activity in the FOV strongly influenced the attenuation maps. Reconstruction algorithms, correction methods, object size and location within the FOV had a strong influence on the PVE in all configurations. All evaluated parameters potentially influence the quantification accuracy. Hence, all protocols should be kept constant during a study to allow a comparison between different scans.

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)0.001
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207