MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161427851 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2007.909851

An Analytical Scatter Correction for Singles-Mode Transmission Data in PET

2008· article· en· W2161427851 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Vandervoort, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)Mode (computer interface)OpticsPhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an analytical scatter correction, based upon the Klein-Nishina formula, for singles-mode transmission data in positron emission tomography (PET) and its implementation as part of an iterative image reconstruction algorithm. We compared our analytically-calculated scatter sinogram data with previously validated simulation data for a small animal PET scanner with 68 Ge (a positron emitter) and 57 Co (approximately 122-keV photon emitter) transmission sources using four different phantom configurations (three uniform water cylinders with radii of 25, 30, and 45 mm and a nonuniform phantom consisting of water, Teflon, and air). Our scatter calculation correctly predicts the contribution from single-scattered (one incoherent scatter interaction) photons to the simulated sinogram data and provides good agreement for the percent scatter fraction (SF) per sinogram for all phantoms and both transmission sources. We then applied our scatter correction as part of an iterative reconstruction algorithm for PET transmission data for simulated and experimental data using uniform and nonuniform phantoms. For both simulated and experimental data, the reconstructed linear attenuation coefficients (mu-values-values) agreed with expected values to within 4% when scatter corrections were applied, for both the 68 Ge and 57 Co transmission sources. We also tested our reconstruction and scatter correction procedure for two experimental rodent studies (a mouse and rat). For the rodent studies, we found that the average mu-values for soft-tissue regions of interest agreed with expected values to within 4%. Using a 2.2-GHz processor, each scatter correction iteration required between 6-27 min of CPU time (without any code optimization) depending on the phantom size and source used. This extra calculation time does not seem unreasonable considering that, without scatter corrections, errors in the reconstructed mu-values were between 18%-45% depending on the phantom size and transmission source used.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207