MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117860436 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1997.670614

Parallel approach to iterative tomographic reconstruction for high resolution PET imaging

2002· article· en· W2117860436 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Desjardins, Roger Lecomte

Bibliographic record

Venue1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterative reconstructionComputer sciencePixelMatrix (chemical analysis)Iterative methodAlgorithmImage resolutionParallel computingComputational scienceComputer visionMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors present a parallel approach to iterative reconstruction algorithms for high resolution 2-D and 3-D PET imaging on a multiprocessor machine where processors are connected by fast Ethernet connections. An efficient parallel implementation of the ML-EM and OS-EM approaches is formulated. It makes use of pre-calculated transition matrices, utilizing the combination of four techniques for storage reduction: (1) a sparse matrix approach, storing only non-negligible values, (2) the elimination of all symmetries, (3) the elimination of matrix elements outside the aperture of the tomograph and (4) the partition of the transition matrix amongst the different processors. This approach can be used in practice for very large 2-D images, as it reduces the storage size of transition matrices per processor by a factor of 8200 for images of 64/spl times/64 up to a factor of 98000 for images of 1024/spl times/1024. A performance analysis of the parallel algorithm is presented. The parallel ML-EM approach with a pre-computed transition matrix can reconstruct 128/spl times/128 pixels images in 0.25 sec/iteration, as opposed to several minutes when the matrix is calculated on the fly by a single processor. Some parametrisations of the parallel OS-FM approach offer total reconstruction times of 2 seconds for 128/spl times/128 pixels images.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference RecordSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207