MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122886619 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/8/004

A scatter-corrected list-mode reconstruction and a practical scatter/random approximation technique for dynamic PET imaging

2007· article· en· W2122886619 on OpenAlexaff
Ju-Chieh Cheng, Arman Rahmim, Stephan Blinder, Marie-Laure Camborde, Kelvin Raywood, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomPoisson distributionHistogramMathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsOpticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an ordinary Poisson list-mode expectation maximization (OP-LMEM) algorithm with a sinogram-based scatter correction method based on the single scatter simulation (SSS) technique and a random correction method based on the variance-reduced delayed-coincidence technique. We also describe a practical approximate scatter and random-estimation approach for dynamic PET studies based on a time-averaged scatter and random estimate followed by scaling according to the global numbers of true coincidences and randoms for each temporal frame. The quantitative accuracy achieved using OP-LMEM was compared to that obtained using the histogram-mode 3D ordinary Poisson ordered subset expectation maximization (3D-OP) algorithm with similar scatter and random correction methods, and they showed excellent agreement. The accuracy of the approximated scatter and random estimates was tested by comparing time activity curves (TACs) as well as the spatial scatter distribution from dynamic non-human primate studies obtained from the conventional (frame-based) approach and those obtained from the approximate approach. An excellent agreement was found, and the time required for the calculation of scatter and random estimates in the dynamic studies became much less dependent on the number of frames (we achieved a nearly four times faster performance on the scatter and random estimates by applying the proposed method). The precision of the scatter fraction was also demonstrated for the conventional and the approximate approach using phantom studies.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207