MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132402064 · doi:10.1109/tns.2005.851463

Implementation of an analytically based scatter correction in SPECT reconstructions

2005· article· en· W2132402064 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Vandervoort, A. Ćeller, R. Glenn Wells, Stephan Blinder, Katherine Dixon, Yanxin Pang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollimatorImaging phantomAttenuationIterative reconstructionImage qualityOpticsPhysicsCorrection for attenuationNoise (video)ScatteringPhotonSingle-photon emission computed tomographyContrast (vision)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Nuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photon scattering is one of the main effects contributing to the degradation of image quality and to quantitative inaccuracy in nuclear imaging. We have developed a scatter correction based on a simplified version of the analytic photon distribution (APD) method, and have implemented it in an iterative image reconstruction algorithm. The scatter distributions generated using this approach were compared to those obtained using the original APD method. Reconstructions were performed using computer simulations, phantom experiments, and patient data. Images corrected for scatter, attenuation, and collimator blurring were compared to images corrected only for attenuation and collimator blurring. In the simulation studies, results were compared to an ideal situation in which only the primary (unscattered) photon data were reconstructed. Results showed that in all cases, the scatter-corrected images demonstrated substantially improved image contrast relative to no scatter correction. For simulated data, scatter-corrected images had very similar contrast and noise properties to the primary-only reconstructions. Additional work is required to further reduce the computation times to clinically viable amounts.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations51
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207