MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332882478 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/7/2893

Stray light in cone beam optical computed tomography: I. Measurement and reduction strategies with planar diffuse source

2016· article· en· W2332882478 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick V. Granton, Kurtis H Dekker, Jerry Battista, Kevin Jordan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomOpticsStray lightScannerCone beam computed tomographyMaterials scienceAperture (computer memory)DosimetryPhysicsNuclear medicineComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scanning of 3D radiochromic dosimeters may provide a practical method for 3D dose verification in radiation therapy. However, in cone-beam geometry stray light contaminates the projection images, degrading the accuracy of reconstructed linear attenuation coefficients. Stray light was measured using a beam pass aperture array (BPA) and structured illumination methods. The stray-to-primary ray ratio (SPR) along the central axis was found to be 0.24 for a 5% gelatin hydrogel, representative of radiochromic hydrogels. The scanner was modified by moving the spectral filter from the detector to the source, changing the light's spatial fluence pattern and lowering the acceptance angle by extending distance between the source and object. These modifications reduced the SPR significantly from 0.24 to 0.06. The accuracy of the reconstructed linear attenuation coefficients for uniform carbon black liquids was compared to independent spectrometer measurements. Reducing the stray light increased the range of accurate transmission readings. In order to evaluate scanner performance for the more challenging application to small field dosimetry, a carbon black finger gel phantom was prepared. Reconstructions of the phantom from CBCT and fan-beam CT scans were compared. The modified source resulted in improved agreement. Subtraction of residual stray light, measured with BPA or structured illumination from each projection further improved agreement. Structured illumination was superior to BPA for measuring stray light for the smaller 1.2 and 0.5 cm diameter phantom fingers. At the costs of doubling the scanner size and tripling the number of scans, CBCT reconstructions of low-scattering hydrogel dosimeters agreed with those of fan-beam CT scans.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207