MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167040277 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e3282f5d2de

System matrix modelling of externally tracked motion

2008· article· en· W2167040277 on OpenAlexafffund
Arman Rahmim, Ju-Chieh Cheng, Katie Dinelle, M. Shilov, W. Paul Segars, Olivier Rousset, B.M.W. Tsui, Dean F. Wong, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institutes of Natural SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsComputer scienceMotion (physics)Matrix (chemical analysis)Artificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In high-resolution emission tomography imaging, even small patient movements can considerably degrade image quality. The aim of this work was to develop a general approach to motion-corrected reconstruction of motion-contaminated data in the case of rigid motion (particularly brain imaging) which would be applicable to any PET scanner in the field, without specialized data-acquisition requirements. METHODS: Assuming the ability to externally track subject motion during scanning (e.g., using the Polaris camera), we proposed to incorporate the measured rigid motion information into the system matrix of the expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm. Furthermore, we noted and developed a framework to incorporate the additional effect of motion on modifying the attenuation factors. A new mathematical brain phantom was developed and used along with elaborate combined Simset/GATE simulations to compare the proposed framework with the cases of no motion correction. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clear qualitative and quantitative improvements were observed when incorporating the proposed framework. The method is very practical to implement for any scanner in the field, not requiring any hardware modifications or access to the list-mode acquisition capability.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207