MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094924690 · doi:10.1093/jbi/wbaa086

Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Technique and Common Artifacts

2020· article· en· W3094924690 on OpenAlexaff
Yi‐Chen Lai, Kimberly M. Ray, James G. Mainprize, Tatiana Kelil, Bonnie N. Joe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Breast Imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTomosynthesisDigital Breast TomosynthesisComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePixelDetectorImage resolutionIterative reconstructionMammographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image optimization at digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) involves a series of trade-offs between multiple variables. Wider sweep angles provide better separation of overlapping tissues, but they result in decreased in-plane resolution as well as increased scan times that may be prone to patient motion. Techniques to reduce scan time, such as continuous tube motion and pixel binning during detector readout, reduce the chances of patient motion but may degrade the in-plane resolution. Image artifacts are inherent to DBT because of the limited angular range of the acquisition. Iterative reconstruction algorithms have been shown to reduce various DBT artifacts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Breast ImagingSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207