MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090091618 · doi:10.1118/1.4889088

SU‐F‐18C‐04: A Combination of Monoenergetic Reconstruction and Stoichiometric Calibration for Tissue Characterization Using Dual Energy Computed Tomography

2014· article· en· W2090091618 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Bedwani, Jean‐Luc Tremblay, Hugo Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital Enhanced Cordless TelecommunicationsImaging phantomCalibrationNuclear medicineIterative reconstructionRadiationNoise (video)Computer sciencePhysicsOpticsMedicineArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) pre‐reconstruction methods require the prior knowledge of the X‐ray source spectrum to allow extracting physical parameters needed for radiation therapy dose calculation, such as electron density (ED) and the effective atomic number (EAN). While DECT stoichiometric calibration may provide reliable performance for typical radiation therapy clinical conditions, it is yet to be adapted to prereconstruction methods. The presence of noise and inaccurate spectrum description may lead to systematic errors and artifacts which compromise the accuracy of treatment planning. Methods: A new technique is investigated which consists in applying a DECT stoichiometric calibration method to a set of monoenergetic images obtained with a DECT prereconstruction method. To evaluate the performance of this extended method, a simulation environment is developed to generate DECT scans under well controlled conditions, to reconstruct monoenergetic images of a tissue‐equivalent phantom from transformed sinograms and to extract ED and EAN maps using a DECT formalism. Result: Under simulated clinical conditions, the accuracy in determining ED with the extended method versus a pre‐reconstruction method alone is shown to be better than 0.35% versus 0.5%, respectively. In the presence of a realistic noise level, EAN determination presents a relative mean error that drops from 2.5% to 0.5% once the calibration is applied. Considering a spectrum alteration by a 1 mm Cu layer, EAN errors are up to 30% for the pre‐reconstruction method alone versus less than 3% for the extended method. Conclusion: This study shows that combining pre‐reconstruction DECT methods with a stoichiometric calibration considerably improves the accuracy and reliability of tissue characterization for radiation therapy in a clinical context. The presented method could potentially be adapted as gold standard for dose calculation methods based on DECT.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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