Ultra-Low-Dose Sparse-View Quantitative CT Liver Perfusion Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".