MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088574251 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/10/3137

An x-ray CT polymer gel dosimetry prototype: I. Remnant artefact removal

2012· article· en· W2088574251 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Jirasek, Jennifer Carrick, Michelle Hilts

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of Victoria
FundersStiftelsen för Kunskaps- och Kompetensutveckling
KeywordsNoise (video)StreakFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceImage noiseDosimetryMedian filterPixelArtificial intelligenceSIGNAL (programming language)PhysicsMaterials scienceComputer visionAlgorithmImage processingOpticsImage (mathematics)Nuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study a new x-ray CT polymer gel dosimetry (PGD) filtering technique is presented for the removal of (i) remnant ring and streak artefacts, and (ii) 'structured' noise in the form of minute, intrinsic gel density fluctuations. It is shown that the noise present within x-ray CT PGD images is not purely stochastic (pixel by pixel) in nature, but rather is 'structured', and hence purely stochastic-based noise-removal filters fail in removing this significant, unwanted noise component. The remnant artefact removal (RAR) technique is based on a class of signal stripping (i.e. baseline-estimation) algorithms typically used in the estimation of unwanted non-uniform baselines underlying spectral data. Here the traditional signal removal algorithm is recast, whereby the 'signal' that is removed is the structured noise and remnant artefacts, leaving the desired polymer gel dose distribution. The algorithm is extended to 2D and input parameters are optimized for PGD images. RAR filter results are tested on (i) synthetic images with measured gel background images added, in order to accurately represent actual noise present in PGD images, and (ii) PGD images of a three-field gel irradiation. RAR results are compared to a top-performing noise filter (adaptive mean, AM), used in previous x-ray CT PGD studies. It is shown that, in all cases, the RAR filter outperforms the AM filter, particularly in cases where either (i) a low-dose gel image has been acquired or (ii) the signal-to-noise ratio of the PG image is low, as in the case when a low number of image averages are acquired within a given experiment. Guidelines for the implementation of the RAR filter are given.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207