MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111338112 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2003.817787

Cone-beam reprojection using projection-matrices

2003· article· en· W2111338112 on OpenAlexaff
Ramesh R. Galigekere, K. Wiesent, David W. Holdsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReprojection errorMaximum intensity projectionProjection (relational algebra)Computer visionVoxelIterative reconstructionVolume renderingArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePixelRendering (computer graphics)Iterative methodAlgorithmVisualizationImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses reprojection of three-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions obtained from cone-beam scans using a C-arm imaging equipment assisted by a pose-determining system. The emphasis is on reprojecting without decomposing the estimated projection matrix (P-matrix) associated with a pose. Both voxel- and ray-driven methods are considered. The voxel-driven reprojector follows the algorithm for backprojection using a P-matrix. The ray-driven reprojector is derived by extracting from the P-matrix the equation of the line joining a detector-pixel and the X-ray source position. This reprojector can be modified to a ray-driven backprojector. When the geometry is specified explicitly in terms of the physical parameters of the imaging system, the projection matrices can be constructed. The resulting "projection-matrix method" is advantageous, especially when the scanning trajectory is irregular. The algorithms presented are useful in iterative methods of image reconstruction and enhancement procedures, apart from their well-known role in visualization and volume rendering. Reprojections of 3-D patient data compare favorably with the original X-ray projections obtained from a prototype C-arm system. The algorithms for reprojection can be modified to compute perspective maximum intensity projection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations59
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207