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 OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Johnstone, Patricia Lindsay, Edward E. Graves, Eugene Wong, Jessica R. Perez, Yannick Poirier, Youssef Ben Bouchta, Thilakshan Kanesalingam, Haijian Chen, Ashley Rubinstein, Ke Sheng, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207