MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511926802 · doi:10.1118/1.4961758

Sci‐Thur AM: YIS – 08: Automated Imaging Quality Assurance for Image‐Guided Small Animal Irradiators

2016· article· en· W2511926802 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Johnstone, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomQuality assuranceImage qualityVoxelNuclear medicineComputer scienceSoftwareNoise (video)Medical physicsComputer visionMedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To develop quality assurance (QA) standards and tolerance levels for image quality of small animal irradiators. Methods: A fully automated in‐house QA software for image analysis of a commercial microCT phantom was created. Quantitative analyses of CT linearity, signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), uniformity and noise, geometric accuracy, modulation transfer function (MTF), and CT number evaluation was performed. Phantom microCT scans from seven institutions acquired with varying parameters (kVp, mA, time, voxel size, and frame rate) and five irradiator units (Xstrahl SARRP, PXI X‐RAD 225Cx, PXI X‐RAD SmART, GE explore CT/RT 140, and GE Explore CT 120) were analyzed. Multi‐institutional data sets were compared using our in‐house software to establish pass/fail criteria for each QA test. Results: CT linearity (R2>0.996) was excellent at all but Institution 2. Acceptable SNR (>35) and noise levels (<55HU) were obtained at four of the seven institutions, where failing scans were acquired with less than 120mAs. Acceptable MTF (>1.5 lp/mm for MTF=0.2) was obtained at all but Institution 6 due to the largest scan voxel size (0.35mm). The geometric accuracy passed (<1.5%) at five of the seven institutions. Conclusion: Our QA software can be used to rapidly perform quantitative imaging QA for small animal irradiators, accumulate results over time, and display possible changes in imaging functionality from its original performance and/or from the recommended tolerance levels. This tool will aid researchers in maintaining high image quality, enabling precise conformal dose delivery to small animals.

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)0.001
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 score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207