Optimal slice thickness for cone-beam CT with on-board imager
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To find the optimal slice thickness (Δτ) setting for patient registration with kilovoltage cone-beam CT (kVCBCT) on the Varian On Board Imager (OBI) system by investigating the relationship of slice thickness to automatic registration accuracy and contrast-to-noise ratio. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Automatic registration was performed on kVCBCT studies of the head and pelvis of a RANDO anthropomorphic phantom. Images were reconstructed with 1.0 ≤ Δτ (mm) ≤ 5.0 at 1.0 mm increments. The phantoms were offset by a known amount, and the suggested shifts were compared to the known shifts by calculating the residual error. A uniform cylindrical phantom with cylindrical inserts of various known CT numbers was scanned with kVCBCT at 1.0 ≤ Δτ (mm) ≤ 5.0 at increments of 0.5 mm. The contrast-to-noise ratios for the inserts were measured at each Δτ. RESULTS: For the planning CT slice thickness used in this study, there was no significant difference in residual error below a threshold equal to the planning CT slice thickness. For Δτ > 3.0 mm, residual error increased for both the head and pelvis phantom studies. The contrast-to-noise ratio is proportional to slice thickness until Δτ = 2.5 mm. Beyond this point, the contrast-to-noise ratio was not affected by Δτ. CONCLUSION: Automatic registration accuracy is greatest when 1.0 ≤ Δτ (mm) ≤ 3.0 is used. Contrast-to-noise ratio is optimal for the 2.5 ≤ Δτ (mm) ≤ 5.0 range. Therefore 2.5 ≤ Δτ (mm) ≤ 3.0 is recommended for kVCBCT patient registration where the planning CT is 3.0 mm.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".