Quantification of airway morphometry: the effect of CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study measured the accuracy of our airway quantification scheme using phantoms airway under different CT protocols. Airway remodeling is associated with several thoracic diseases (e.g., chronic bronchitis, asthma, and bronchiectasis), and, therefore, quantification of airway remodeling may have wide clinical application. Our scheme assigns pixels partial membership in the airway wall and lumen based on the pixel's HU value, which is intended to account for partial volume averaging inherent in CT image reconstruction. Twenty-four phantom airways with an outer diameter from 2.6 to 14.0 mm and wall thicknesses from 0.5 to 2.0 mm were analyzed. The absolute differences between measurements supplied by the manufacture and computed from CT images acquired at 40 mAs and reconstructed at 1.25 mm thickness using GE's "soft" and "lung" reconstruction kernels for lumen area ranged from 1.4% to 49.3% and 0.4% to 33.0%, respectively, and for wall area ranged from 0.3% to 118.0% and 2.1 to 92.9%, respectively. Accuracy typically improved as the kernel's spatial frequency increased. Airways whose wall thickness was close to the pixels dimensions were challenging to quantify. The partial membership assignment of our airway quantification accurately computed airway morphometry across a range of phantom airway sizes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".