Single scan parameterization of space-variant point spread functions in image space via a printed array: the impact for two PET/CT scanners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incorporation of a resolution model during statistical image reconstruction often produces images of improved resolution and signal-to-noise ratio. A novel and practical methodology to rapidly and accurately determine the overall emission and detection blurring component of the system matrix using a printed point source array within a custom-made Perspex phantom is presented. The array was scanned at different positions and orientations within the field of view (FOV) to examine the feasibility of extrapolating the measured point source blurring to other locations in the FOV and the robustness of measurements from a single point source array scan. We measured the spatially-variant image-based blurring on two PET/CT scanners, the B-Hi-Rez and the TruePoint TrueV. These measured spatially-variant kernels and the spatially-invariant kernel at the FOV centre were then incorporated within an ordinary Poisson ordered subset expectation maximization (OP-OSEM) algorithm and compared to the manufacturer's implementation using projection space resolution modelling (RM). Comparisons were based on a point source array, the NEMA IEC image quality phantom, the Cologne resolution phantom and two clinical studies (carbon-11 labelled anti-sense oligonucleotide [(11)C]-ASO and fluorine-18 labelled fluoro-l-thymidine [(18)F]-FLT). Robust and accurate measurements of spatially-variant image blurring were successfully obtained from a single scan. Spatially-variant resolution modelling resulted in notable resolution improvements away from the centre of the FOV. Comparison between spatially-variant image-space methods and the projection-space approach (the first such report, using a range of studies) demonstrated very similar performance with our image-based implementation producing slightly better contrast recovery (CR) for the same level of image roughness (IR). These results demonstrate that image-based resolution modelling within reconstruction is a valid alternative to projection-based modelling, and that, when using the proposed practical methodology, the necessary resolution measurements can be obtained from a single scan. This approach avoids the relatively time-consuming and involved procedures previously proposed in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".