MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789563603 · doi:10.3233/xst-17289

A fast 4D cone beam CT reconstruction method based on the OSC-TV algorithm

2018· article· en· W2789563603 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Mascolo‐Fortin, Dmitri Matenine, Louis Archambault, Philippe Després

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of X-Ray Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceIterative reconstructionAlgorithmImaging phantomRegularization (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionImage qualityReconstruction algorithmImage (mathematics)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Four-dimensional cone beam computed tomography allows for temporally resolved imaging with useful applications in radiotherapy, but raises particular challenges in terms of image quality and computation time. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work is to develop a fast and accurate 4D algorithm by adapting a GPU-accelerated ordered subsets convex algorithm (OSC), combined with the total variation minimization regularization technique (TV). METHODS: Different initialization schemes were studied to adapt the OSC-TV algorithm to 4D reconstruction: each respiratory phase was initialized either with a 3D reconstruction or a blank image. Reconstruction algorithms were tested on a dynamic numerical phantom and on a clinical dataset. 4D iterations were implemented for a cluster of 8 GPUs. RESULTS: All developed methods allowed for an adequate visualization of the respiratory movement and compared favorably to the McKinnon-Bates and adaptive steepest descent projection onto convex sets algorithms, while the 4D reconstructions initialized from a prior 3D reconstruction led to better overall image quality. CONCLUSION: The most suitable adaptation of OSC-TV to 4D CBCT was found to be a combination of a prior FDK reconstruction and a 4D OSC-TV reconstruction with a reconstruction time of 4.5 minutes. This relatively short reconstruction time could facilitate a clinical use.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of X-Ray Science and TechnologySame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207