MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792820487 · doi:10.1002/mp.12883

Patient‐specific estimation of spatially variant image noise for a pinhole cardiac<scp>SPECT</scp>camera

2018· article· en· W2792820487 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah G. Cuddy‐Walsh, R. Glenn Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCarleton UniversityAmerican Physical Society
KeywordsNoise (video)Imaging phantomImage noiseVoxelPinhole (optics)Single-photon emission computed tomographyPhysicsOpticsMathematicsComputer visionNuclear medicineComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose New single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) cameras using fixed pinhole collimation are increasingly popular. Pinhole collimators are known to have variable sensitivity with distance and angle from the pinhole aperture. It follows that pinholeSPECTsystems will also have spatially variant sensitivity and hence spatially variant image noise. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a rapid method for analytically estimating a map of the noise magnitude in a reconstructed image using data from a single clinical acquisition. Methods The projected voxel (PV) noise estimation method uses a modified forward projector with attenuation effects to estimate the number of photons detected from each voxel in the field‐of‐view. We approximate the noise for each voxel as the standard deviation of a Poisson distribution with a mean equal to the number of detected photons. An empirical formula is used to address scaling discrepancies caused by image reconstruction. Calibration coefficients are determined for thePVmethod by comparing it with noise measured from a nonparametrically bootstrapped set of images of a spherical uniformly filled Tc‐99m water phantom. Validation studies comparePVnoise estimates with bootstrapped measured noise for 31 patient images (5 min, 340 MBq,99mTc‐tetrofosmin rest study). Results Bland–Altman analysis showsR2correlations ≥70% between thePV‐estimated and ‐measured image noise. For the 31 patient cardiac images, thePVnoise estimate has an average bias of 0.1% compared to bootstrapped noise and have a coefficient of variation (CV) ≤ 17%. The bootstrap approach to noise measurement requires 5 h of computation for each image, whereas thePVnoise estimate requires only 64 s. In cardiac images, image noise due to attenuation and camera sensitivity varies on average from 4% at the apex to 9% in the basal posterior region of the heart. The standard deviation between 15 healthy patient study images (including physiological variability in the population) ranges from 6% to 16.5% over the length of the heart. Conclusions ThePVmethod provides a rapid estimate for spatially variant patient‐specific image noise magnitude in a pinhole‐collimated dedicated cardiacSPECTcamera with a bias of −0.3% and better than 83% precision.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207