Optimizing dual energy cone beam CT protocols for preclinical imaging and radiation research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this work was to investigate whether quantitative dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging is feasible for small animal irradiators with an integrated cone-beam CT (CBCT) system. Methods: The optimal imaging protocols were determined by analyzing different energy combinations and dose levels. The influence of beam hardening effects and the performance of a beam hardening correction (BHC) were investigated. In addition, two systems from different manufacturers were compared in terms of errors in the extracted effective atomic numbers (Zeff) and relative electron densities (ρe) for phantom inserts with known elemental compositions and relative electron densities. Results: The optimal energy combination was determined to be 50 and 90 kVp. For this combination, Zeff and ρe can be extracted with a mean error of 0.11 and 0.010, respectively, at a dose level of 60 cGy. Conclusion: Quantitative DECT imaging is feasible for small animal irradiators with an integrated CBCT system. To obtain the best results, optimizing the imaging protocols is required. Well-separated X-ray spectra and a sufficient dose level should be used to minimize the error and noise for Zeff and ρe. When no BHC is applied in the image reconstruction, the size of the calibration phantom should match the size of the imaged object to limit the influence of beam hardening effects. No significant differences in Zeff and ρe errors are observed between the two systems from different manufacturers. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study that investigates quantitative DECT imaging for small animal irradiators with an integrated CBCT system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".