MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470849666 · doi:10.1118/1.4957865

WE‐DE‐207B‐05: Measuring Spatial Resolution in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update of AAPM Task Group 245

2016· article· en· W2470849666 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Scaduto, Mitchell M. Goodsitt, H. Freyja Ólafsdóttir, Mini Das, Erik Fredenberg, William R. Geiser, David J. Goodenough, Patrice Heid, Y‐H Hu, B. Liu, James G. Mainprize, Ingrid Reiser, Ruben E. van Engen, Vladimir Varchena, Sara Del Vecchio, S.J. Glick, Wei Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage resolutionOptical transfer functionImaging phantomTomosynthesisOpticsImage qualityPoint spread functionIterative reconstructionDeconvolutionDetectorPhysicsComputer scienceMammographyArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Spatial resolution in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is affected by inherent/binned detector resolution, oblique entry of x‐rays, and focal spot size/motion; the limited angular range further limits spatial resolution in the depth‐direction. While DBT is being widely adopted clinically, imaging performance metrics and quality control protocols have not been standardized. AAPM Task Group 245 on Tomosynthesis Quality Control has been formed to address this deficiency. Methods: Methods of measuring spatial resolution are evaluated using two prototype quality control phantoms for DBT. Spatial resolution in the detector plane is measured in projection and reconstruction domains using edge‐spread function (ESF), point‐spread function (PSF) and modulation transfer function (MTF). Spatial resolution in the depth‐direction and effective slice thickness are measured in the reconstruction domain using slice sensitivity profile (SSP) and artifact spread function (ASF). An oversampled PSF in the depth‐direction is measured using a 50 µm angulated tungsten wire, from which the MTF is computed. Object‐dependent PSF is derived and compared with ASF. Sensitivity of these measurements to phantom positioning, imaging conditions and reconstruction algorithms is evaluated. Results are compared from systems of varying acquisition geometry (9–25 projections over 15–60°). Dependence of measurements on feature size is investigated. Results: Measurements of spatial resolution using PSF and LSF are shown to depend on feature size; depth‐direction spatial resolution measurements are shown to similarly depend on feature size for ASF, though deconvolution with an object function removes feature size‐dependence. A slanted wire may be used to measure oversampled PSFs, from which MTFs may be computed for both in‐plane and depth‐direction resolution. Conclusion: Spatial resolution measured using PSF is object‐independent with sufficiently small object; MTF is object‐independent. Depth‐direction spatial resolution may be measured directly using MTF or indirectly using ASF or SSP as surrogate measurements. While MTF is object‐independent, it is invalid for nonlinear reconstructions.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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