Sci‐Thur AM: YIS – 08: Automated Imaging Quality Assurance for Image‐Guided Small Animal Irradiators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".