MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543939025 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2011.6153638

Resolution recovery for Compton camera using origin ensemble algorithm

2011· article· en· W2543939025 on OpenAlexaff
Andriy Andreyev, A. Ćeller, Arkadiusz Sitek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage resolutionDetectorIterative reconstructionExpectation–maximization algorithmAlgorithmPhotonPhysicsResolution (logic)OpticsSensitivity (control systems)Reconstruction algorithmCompton scatteringComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMaximum likelihoodElectronic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial resolution that can be achieved by a Compton camera (CC) is limited by finite energy and spatial resolutions of camera's detectors and by Doppler broadening. In principle, modeling of these effects in image reconstruction would allow for at least partial recovery of the lost resolution. Unfortunately, a substantial increase in computing time precludes practical implementations of such modeling when using standard iterative reconstruction algorithms, such as Maximum Likelihood Expectation Maximization (MLEM). In this work we propose a new method to model resolution degrading effects using origin ensemble (OE) image reconstruction algorithm. The basic principle of the resolution recovery with OE is the stochastic modeling of distributions of deposited energies and locations of photon interactions within the detectors. To test the developed algorithm we designed a high sensitivity CC aimed at small animal/mammography imaging, with scatter and absorption detectors replaced by a single thick, multi-layer CZT detector. The simulated radioactive source consisted of four 3 mm in diameter hot spheres placed in a warm background. Single detection of 511 keV photons was modeled. Results show that proposed method substantially improved not only image resolution but also quantitative accuracy of the reconstructed activity distributions.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207