MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775553964 · doi:10.1002/mp.12718

Report of <scp>AAPM</scp> Task Group 162: Software for planar image quality metrology

2017· article· en· W2775553964 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Samei, Lynda C. Ikejimba, Brian Harrawood, John Rong, Ian A. Cunningham, Michael Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask groupImage qualityMetrologyComputer scienceSoftwareTask (project management)Medical physicsGroup (periodic table)Quality (philosophy)PhysicsImage (mathematics)OpticsEngineeringComputer visionSystems engineeringOperating systemEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The AAPM Task Group 162 aimed to provide a standardized approach for the assessment of image quality in planar imaging systems. This report offers a description of the approach as well as the details of the resultant software bundle to measure detective quantum efficiency (DQE) as well as its basis components and derivatives. METHODS: The methodology and the associated software include the characterization of the noise power spectrum (NPS) from planar images acquired under specific acquisition conditions, modulation transfer function (MTF) using an edge test object, the DQE, and effective DQE (eDQE). First, a methodological framework is provided to highlight the theoretical basis of the work. Then, a step-by-step guide is included to assist in proper execution of each component of the code. Lastly, an evaluation of the method is included to validate its accuracy against model-based and experimental data. RESULTS: The code was built using a Macintosh OSX operating system. The software package contains all the source codes to permit an experienced user to build the suite on a Linux or other *nix type system. The package further includes manuals and sample images and scripts to demonstrate use of the software for new users. The results of the code are in close alignment with theoretical expectations and published results of experimental data. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology and the software package offered in AAPM TG162 can be used as baseline for characterization of inherent image quality attributes of planar imaging systems.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207