MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160684439 · doi:10.1109/tns.2002.1039560

Comparison of different figure of merit functions for dynamic single photon emission computed tomography (dSPECT)

2002· article· en· W2160684439 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Blondel, Dominikus Noll, J. Maeght, A. Ćeller, Troy Farncombe

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingle-photon emission computed tomographyRegularization (linguistics)Figure of meritImage resolutionEmission computed tomographyPhysicsTomographyTemporal resolutionPhotonIterative reconstructionPositron emission tomographyDynamic rangeOpticsComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic single photon emission computed tomography (dSPECT) is a technique which visualizes changing activity distributions in the human body, using dynamic emission data acquired during a single rotation of a standard SPECT camera system. The reconstruction process in dSPECT is based on nonlinear regularization and optimization techniques, and we presently compare a number of possible problem oriented figures of merit based on different spatial and temporal regularization techniques. The accuracy of dSPECT in terms of temporal and spatial resolution is tested in a simulated dynamic cardiac study and a dynamic renal patient study.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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