MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168894636 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1995.510427

Motion correction of PET images using multiple acquisition frames

2002· article· en· W2168894636 on OpenAlexaff
Y. J. Picard, C.J. Thompson, J.J. Moreno-Cantú

Bibliographic record

Venue1995 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePosition (finance)Head (geology)Data acquisitionFrame (networking)Displacement (psychology)Motion (physics)Positron emission tomographyNuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a relatively lengthy brain imaging method. Because it is difficult for the patient to stay still during the data acquisition, head motion during scans are a source of image degradation. To reduce the degradation, a simple data acquisition technique is described. This technique associates the incoming data with the real-space position of the head. It consists of constantly monitoring the head position during PET studies and comparing the head position to the initial head position associated with the current acquisition frame. Every time the maximum RMS displacement within the field of view (FOV) is larger than a specified threshold value, the data acquisition system starts acquiring the data into a new frame. A complete study is then acquired over several frames. The number of frames required depends on the motion of the head during the study and on the threshold value. At the end of the study all the acquired frames are reconstructed independently and each image is rotated and translated according to its associated initial head position. When these images are added together, it will produce a final image with fewer motion artefacts.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue1995 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference RecordSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207