Computer-Aided Detection of Polyps in a Colon Phantom: Effect of Scan Orientation, Polyp Size, Collimation, and Dose
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the importance of polyp size, orientation to the scan plane, collimation, scanner type (single or multislice helical), and radiation dose on computed tomography (CT) colonography computer-aided detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight tissue-equivalent simulated polyps were placed into the interior of an air-filled acrylic tube placed within a water-filled box. Their sizes, expressed by diameter and height in millimeters, were 10 x 10, 10 x 7, 10 x 5, 10 x 3, 7 x 7, 7 x 5, 7 x 3, and 5 x 5. Detection of the polyps was performed by applying our prototype automated polyp detector software to 48 CT colonography data sets of the phantom acquired with different CT scanner settings. RESULTS: We detected at least six of the eight polyps in 47 of 48 experiments. The two most frequently undetected polyps (7 x 7 and 5 x 5) had extreme eccentricity (their height was twice the radius of the base) and were most commonly missed for 90 degrees tube orientation, 5-mm collimation, and high table speed. False-positive detections occurred in only 5 of 48 experiments. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant 10-mm polyps can be detected with 100% sensitivity in all orientations, doses, collimations, and modes that we examined.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it