MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080810029 · doi:10.1118/1.2184445

Effect of scatter and an antiscatter grid on the performance of a slot‐scanning digital mammography system

2006· article· en· W2080810029 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Z. Shen, Aili K. Bloomquist, Gordon E. Mawdsley, Martin J. Yaffe, Idris A. Elbakri

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyOpticsMaterials scienceDetectorDigital mammographyFlat panel detectorRadiationDosimetryNuclear medicinePhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of a grid increases perceptibility of low contrast objects in mammography. Slot-scan mammography provides a more dose efficient reduction of the scattered radiation reaching the detector than obtained with an antiscatter grid in screen-film or flat-panel digital mammography. In this paper, the potential of using a grid in a slot-scan system to provide a further reduction of scattered radiation is investigated. The components of the digital signal: primary radiation, off-focus radiation, scattered radiation, and optical fluorescence glare in a CsI(Tl) detector were quantified. Based on these measurements, the primary and scatter transmission factors (Tp, Ts), scatter-to-primary ratio (SPR), signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), and the SDNR improvement factor (K(SDNR)) were obtained. Our results showed that the SPR ranged from 0.05 to 0.19 for breast thicknesses between 2 and 8 cm, respectively. The values of K(SDNR) ranged from 0.85 to 0.94. Because the slot-scanning system has an inherently low SPR, the increase in dose required when the grid is used outweighs the benefit of the small increase in SDNR. It is possible that greater benefit could be achieved by using a grid with a higher Tp, such as obtained using air-core technology.

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)0.000
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207