MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466880357 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/2/3/035022

Scatter point models for breast cone-beam computed tomography: preliminary study

2016· article· en· W2466880357 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis Laamanen, Robert J. LeClair

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone beam computed tomographyPoint (geometry)Computed tomographyCone (formal languages)TomographyOpticsFocal pointBeam (structure)PhysicsComputer scienceMedicineRadiologyGeometryMathematicsAlgorithmCardinal point

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulations with a single scatter point per incident beamlet (SSP) model applied to homogeneous phantoms could provide scatter signals that can be subtracted from cone beam breast CT projections so as to minimize the effects caused by scattered photons. Consider a heterogeneous 14 cm diameter 10.5 cm long cylindrical fat cylinder with 5 embedded cylinders of fibroglandular (fib) such that the percent volume of fib is 15%. A 60 kV beam delivering a total dose of 7 mGy over 300 projections was used for interrogation. A transmission model and a many scattering point per incident beamlet (MSP) model incorporating a scattering point every 1 cm of depth of beamlet were used to estimate the energy integrated signals (EIS) due to primary (p) and single scattered (s) photons on each pixel. These models were also used to calculate the EIS p and EIS s for a homogeneous phantom of the same size and fib:fat mass fractions. The SSP model was then applied with the scatter point of interaction being at a depth = d k × δ where d k = length of beamlet k in the phantom and δ was found by matching its peak scatter-to-primary ratio with that obtained with the MSP homogeneous model. The SSP was tested to correct for the effects of the single scatter during cone beam CT of the heterogeneous phantom. The Hounsfield unit deviations from the ideal primary for fib and fat were −95.1 and −56 via no correction for scatter whereas with correction they were 3.8 and −2. It was encouraging to see how a simple model could minimize the effects of single scattered photons during a cone beam CT imaging task. The preliminary findings encourage further efforts for thoroughly testing its applicability for obtaining higher quality images.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueBiomedical Physics & Engineering ExpressSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207