Technical Note: Evaluation of an iterative reconstruction algorithm for optical <scp>CT</scp> radiation dosimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Iterative CT reconstruction algorithms are gaining popularity as GPU-based computation becomes more accessible. These algorithms are desirable in x-ray CT for their ability to achieve similar image quality at a fraction of the dose required for standard filtered backprojection reconstructions. In optical CT dosimetry, the noise reduction capability of such algorithms is similarly desirable because noise has a detrimental effect on the precision of dosimetric analysis, and can create misleading test results. In this study, we evaluate an iterative CT reconstruction algorithm for gel dosimetry, with special attention to the challenging dosimetry of small fields. METHODS: An existing ordered subsets convex algorithm using total variation minimization regularization (OSC-TV) was implemented. Three datasets, which represent the extreme cases of gel dosimetry, were examined: a large, 15 cm diameter uniform phantom, a 1.35 cm diameter finger phantom, and a 15 cm gel dosimeter irradiated with 3 × 3, 2 × 2, 1 × 1, and 0.6 × 0.6 cm fields. These were scanned on an in-house scanning laser system, and reconstructed with both filtered backprojection and OSC-TV with a range of regularization constants. The contrast to artifact + noise ratio (CANR) and penumbra width measurements (80% to 20% and 95% to 5% distances) were used to compare reconstructions. RESULTS: Our results showed that OSC-TV can achieve 3-5× improvement in contrast to artifact + noise ratio compared to filtered backprojection, while preserving the shape of steep dose gradients. For very small objects (≤ 0.6 × 0.6 cm fields in a 16 × 16 cm field of view), the mean value in the center of the object can be suppressed if the regularization constant is improperly set, which must be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results indicate that OSC-TV is a suitable reconstruction algorithm for gel dosimetry, provided care is taken in setting the regularization parameter when reconstructing objects that are small compared to the scanner field of view.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".