MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088318762 · doi:10.1118/1.4752083

Traceable micro‐CT scaling accuracy phantom for applications requiring exact measurement of distances or volumes

2012· article· en· W2088318762 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher S. R. Waring, Jeffrey Bax, Amila Samarabandu, David W. Holdsworth, Aaron Fenster, James C. Lacefield

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchCancer Research Institute
KeywordsImaging phantomScannerCalibrationVoxelFiducial markerScalingMedical imagingComputer scienceImage processingImage registrationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOpticsMathematicsPhysicsImage (mathematics)GeometryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Volumetric x-ray microcomputed tomography (CT) can be employed in a variety of quantitative research applications such as image-guided interventions or characterization of medical devices. To ensure the highest geometric fidelity of images for these applications, a phantom and image processing algorithm have been developed to calibrate the scaling accuracy of micro-CT scanners to a traceable standard and provide corrections to image voxel sizing. METHODS: The calibration phantom contains six borosilicate beads whose separations have been measured to a traceable standard. An image processing algorithm compares the known separations of the beads to their separations in micro-CT images. A least-squares solution is used to determine linear scaling correction factors along each of the three scanner axes to minimize errors in the bead separations within the images by correcting the image voxel size. The correction factors were applied to images of a similar phantom with beads at different positions to evaluate the ability of the correction factors to reduce errors at points independent of the fiducial locations in the calibration phantom. The calibration phantom was used to evaluate the scaling accuracy of five different micro-CT scanners representing four different scanner models. RESULTS: In two of the five scanners evaluated, the correction factors significantly reduced the mean error in bead separations in the images from 0.17% to 0.05% and from 0.37% to 0.07% of the actual bead separations, respectively. Scanners yielding similar voxel sizes possessed comparable geometric errors after correction using the phantom. CONCLUSIONS: Although the magnitude of the corrections is small, such corrections can be important for demanding micro-CT applications. Even if no voxel size correction is required, the phantom provides an easily implemented method to verify the geometric fidelity of micro-CT scanners to a traceable standard of measurement.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207