MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774121398 · doi:10.18383/j.tom.2017.00018

Ultra-Low-Dose Sparse-View Quantitative CT Liver Perfusion Imaging

2017· article· en· W2774121398 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

VenueTomography · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsPerfusion scanningNuclear medicineLiver perfusionPerfusionRadiologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation dose of computed tomography liver perfusion imaging can be reduced by collecting fewer x-ray projections in each gantry rotation, but the resulting aliasing artifacts could affect the hepatic perfusion measurement. We investigated the effect of projection undersampling on the assessment of hepatic arterial blood flow (HABF) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) when dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) liver images were reconstructed with filtered backprojection (FBP) and compressed sensing (CS). DCE liver images of a patient with HCC acquired with a 64-row CT scanner were reconstructed from all the measured projections (984-view) with the standard FBP and from one-third (328-view) and one-fourth (246-view) of all available projections with FBP and CS. Each of the 5 sets of DCE liver images was analyzed with a model-based deconvolution algorithm from which HABF maps were generated and compared. Mean HABF in the tumor and normal tissue measured by the 328-view CS and FBP protocols was within 5% differences from that assessed by the reference full-view FBP protocol. In addition, the tumor size measured by using the 328-view CS and FBP average images was identical to that determined by using the full-view FBP average image. By contrast, both the 246-view CS and FBP protocols exhibited larger differences (>20%) in anatomical and functional assessments compared with the full-view FBP protocol. The preliminary results suggested that computed tomography perfusion imaging in HCC could be performed with 3 times less projection measurement than the current full-view protocol (67% reduction in radiation dose) when either FBP or CS was used for image 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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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