MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774734347

A Method for Narrow Field-Of-View Region-Of-Interest Computed Tomography

2017· article· en· W2774734347 on OpenAlexaff
Esmaeil Enjilela, Esam M.A. Hussein

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegion of interestComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImaging phantomIterative reconstructionImage qualityImage (mathematics)PixelComputer scienceField of viewMathematicsOpticsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for reconstructing of an internal tomographic image for a region-of-interest (RoI) within a section, using narrowed radiation beams. This reduces radiation exposure, and with the aid of an iterative image reconstruction algorithm, RoI images are reconstructed with a quality comparable to conventional computed tomography (CT) full field-of-view images. Region-of-interest image reconstruction is formulated as a discrete problem to avoid the truncated (incomplete) problem associated with the conventional analytic filtered backprojection method. This in turn allows local reconstruction of RoI images without any prior information or constraints. A coarse image of the entire section is first reconstructed with the aid of a modified convex maximum likelihood (MCML) algorithm. The coarse image is then used to account for the effect of the RoI surroundings. With RoI-specific projections, an RoI image is then reconstructed with the MCML method at the desired pixel size. The proposed method is evaluated using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom, with the heart as its RoI, showing an image quality comparable to that of a conventional CT, but with a about 72% reduction in radiation exposure. Unlike existing approaches that require some a prior knowledge of a segment of the image, this approach does not require any prior image information or any constrains on the solution.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.309 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207