MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464751567 · doi:10.1118/1.4957248

MO-DE-209-02: Tomosynthesis Reconstruction Methods

2016· article· en· W2464751567 on OpenAlexaff
James G. Mainprize

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomosynthesisIterative reconstructionMedical physicsImage qualityMammographyTomographyTomographic reconstructionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Medical imagingRadiographyComputer visionNuclear medicineRadiologyMedicineImage (mathematics)Breast cancerAlgorithmCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing mammography as the standard of care in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. DBT is a form of computed tomography, in which a limited set of projection images are acquired over a small angular range and reconstructed into tomographic data. The angular range varies from 15° to 50° and the number of projections varies between 9 and 25 projections, as determined by the equipment manufacturer. It is equally valid to treat DBT as the digital analog of classical tomography – that is, linear tomography. In fact, the name “tomosynthesis” stands for “synthetic tomography.” DBT shares many common features with classical tomography, including the radiographic appearance, dose, and image quality considerations. As such, both the science and practical physics of DBT systems is a hybrid between computed tomography and classical tomographic methods. In this lecture, we will explore the continuum from radiography to computed tomography to illustrate the characteristics of DBT. This lecture will consist of four presentations that will provide a complete overview of DBT, including a review of the fundamentals of DBT acquisition, a discussion of DBT reconstruction methods, an overview of dosimetry for DBT systems, and summary of the underlying image theory of DBT thereby relating image quality and dose. Learning Objectives: 1. To understand the fundamental principles behind tomosynthesis image acquisition. 2. To understand the fundamentals of tomosynthesis image reconstruction. 3. To learn the determinants of image quality and dose in DBT, including measurement techniques. 4. To learn the image theory underlying tomosynthesis, and the relationship between dose and image quality. ADM is a consultant to, and holds stock in, Real Time Tomography, LLC. ADM receives research support from Hologic Inc., Analogic Inc., and Barco NV.; ADM is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Gamma Medica Inc.; A. Maidment, Research Support, Hologic, Inc.; Research Support, Barco, Inc.; Scientific Advisory Board, Gamma Medica, Inc.; Scientific Advisory Board, Real-Time Tomography, LLC.; Shareholder, Real-Time Tomography, LLC; J. Mainprize, Our lab has a research agreement with GE Healthcare on various topics in digital mammography and digital tomosynthesis; W. Zhao, Research grant from Siemens Health Care

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207