MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620629844 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aa76b4

Multi-institutional MicroCT image comparison of image-guided small animal irradiators

2017· article· en· W2620629844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImaging phantomImage qualityQuality assuranceImage resolutionComputer scienceNoise (video)Nuclear medicineOptical transfer functionImage processingData setComputer visionImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMedicineOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To recommend imaging protocols and establish tolerance levels for microCT image quality assurance (QA) performed on conformal image-guided small animal irradiators. A fully automated QA software SAPA (small animal phantom analyzer) for image analysis of the commercial Shelley micro-CT MCTP 610 phantom was developed, in which quantitative analyses of CT number linearity, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), uniformity and noise, geometric accuracy, spatial resolution by means of modulation transfer function (MTF), and CT contrast were performed. Phantom microCT scans from eleven institutions acquired with four image-guided small animal irradiator units (including the commercial PXi X-RAD SmART and Xstrahl SARRP systems) with varying parameters used for routine small animal imaging were analyzed. Multi-institutional data sets were compared using SAPA, based on which tolerance levels for each QA test were established and imaging protocols for QA were recommended. By analyzing microCT data from 11 institutions, we established image QA tolerance levels for all image quality tests. CT number linearity set to R 2 > 0.990 was acceptable in microCT data acquired at all but three institutions. Acceptable SNR > 36 and noise levels <55 HU were obtained at five of the eleven institutions, where failing scans were acquired with current-exposure time of less than 120 mAs. Acceptable spatial resolution (>1.5 lp mm −1 for MTF = 0.2) was obtained at all but four institutions due to their large image voxel size used (>0.275 mm). Ten of the eleven institutions passed the set QA tolerance for geometric accuracy (<1.5%) and nine of the eleven institutions passed the QA tolerance for contrast (>2000 HU for 30 mgI ml −1 ). We recommend performing imaging QA with 70 kVp, 1.5 mA, 120 s imaging time, 0.20 mm voxel size, and a frame rate of 5 fps for the PXi X-RAD SmART. For the Xstrahl SARRP, we recommend using 60 kVp, 1.0 mA, 240 s imaging time, 0.20 mm voxel size, and 6 fps. These imaging protocols should result in high quality images that pass the set tolerance levels on all systems. Average SAPA computation time for complete QA analysis for a 0.20 mm voxel, 400 slice Shelley phantom microCT data set was less than 20 s. We present image quality assurance recommendations for image-guided small animal radiotherapy systems that can aid researchers in maintaining high image quality, allowing for spatially 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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.216 · 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