MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083418721 · doi:10.1259/dmfr/81159071

Optimization of exposure parameters for cone beam computed tomography sialography

2011· article· en· W2083418721 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatima M. Jadu, Melissa L. Hill, Martin J. Yaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueDentomaxillofacial Radiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsImaging phantomImage qualityCone beam computed tomographyNuclear medicineMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringMedicineComputer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligenceComputed tomographyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The assessment of image quality is a crucial step in the development of a new imaging protocol. Having proposed and reported on a preliminary protocol for sialography using cone beam CT (CBCT), the purpose of this study was to further optimize this protocol by maximizing the image signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) and to relate these new data to previously published dosimetric data for CBCT sialography. METHODS: An imaging phantom was constructed using samples with different concentrations of iodine and a water-immersed mandible. The CB MercuRay (Hitachi Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) was used to image the phantom using different peak kilovoltage (kVp) and milliamperage (mA) settings. SDNR was then calculated using the raw images based on mean pixel values (MPV) measured in selected regions of interest (ROI). Finally, a figure of merit (FOM) was calculated to examine the trade-off between image SDNR and effective radiation dose. RESULTS: The SDNR demonstrated an expected increase as the kVp increased from 60 to 120. Also, images made with the higher mA setting (15) had greater SDNR. The iodine concentration also influenced the image quality such that SDNR increased with increased amounts of iodine. The calculated FOM was greatest for the technique using 80 kVp, with equivalent results for 10 mA and 15 mA. CONCLUSION: An optimized protocol for CBCT sialography using CB MercuRay entails a 6 inch field of view with 80 kVp and 10 mA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDentomaxillofacial RadiologySame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207