Effect of block-iterative acceleration on Ga-67 tumor detection in thoracic SPECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combination of human localization receiver operating characteristic (LROC) and channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) ROC psychophysical studies were used to investigate how accelerated ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) and rescaled block-iterative (RBI) EM reconstruction affect tumor detection in simulated Ga-67 SPECT images, The tumors were 1-cm-diameter spheres within the chest region of the three-dimensional mathematical cardiac-torso phantom. Previous work with iterative detector resolution compensation showed that eight iterations of the OSEM algorithm with a subset size of eight (16 subsets) offered optimal observer performance. For the LROC study in this paper, the OSEM and RBI algorithms were implemented using subset sizes P and iterations K that satisfied the relation P=K for P=1, 2, 4, and 8. The CHO was applied to reconstruction strategies that deviated from this relation. Results show that using P/spl les/2 penalized observer performance compared to strategies with larger subset sizes. Other researchers have reported on the more stable convergence and noise properties of the RBI algorithm [(Byrne, 1996) and (Lalush and Tsui, 2000)]. In a similar vein, we found that an RBI strategy with a subset size of P produced the same performance as an OSEM strategy with subset size 2P. As neither algorithm displayed a decisive advantage in speed over the other, we conclude that the RBI algorithm is the better choice for accelerating the Ga-67 reconstructions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".