A maximum likelihood method for high resolution proton radiography/proton CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) is the largest contributor to blurring in proton imaging. In this work, we developed a maximum likelihood least squares estimator that improves proton radiography’s spatial resolution. The water equivalent thickness (WET) through projections defined from the source to the detector pixels were estimated such that they maximizes the likelihood of the energy loss of every proton crossing the volume. The length spent in each projection was calculated through the optimized cubic spline path estimate. The proton radiographies were produced using Geant4 simulations. Three phantoms were studied here: a slanted cube in a tank of water to measure 2D spatial resolution, a voxelized head phantom for clinical performance evaluation as well as a parametric Catphan phantom (CTP528) for 3D spatial resolution. Two proton beam configurations were used: a parallel and a conical beam. Proton beams of 200 and 330 MeV were simulated to acquire the radiography. Spatial resolution is increased from 2.44 lp cm −1 to 4.53 lp cm −1 in the 200 MeV beam and from 3.49 lp cm −1 to 5.76 lp cm −1 in the 330 MeV beam. Beam configurations do not affect the reconstructed spatial resolution as investigated between a radiography acquired with the parallel (3.49 lp cm −1 to 5.76 lp cm −1 ) or conical beam (from 3.49 lp cm −1 to 5.56 lp cm −1 ). The improved images were then used as input in a photon tomography algorithm. The proton CT reconstruction of the Catphan phantom shows high spatial resolution (from 2.79 to 5.55 lp cm −1 for the parallel beam and from 3.03 to 5.15 lp cm −1 for the conical beam) and the reconstruction of the head phantom, although qualitative, shows high contrast in the gradient region. The proposed formulation of the optimization demonstrates serious potential to increase the spatial resolution (up by 65 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi> </mml:mstyle> </mml:math> ) in proton radiography and greatly accelerate proton computed tomography reconstruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".