MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3157959541

Parameterizing the Angular Distribution of Emission: A model for TOF-PET low counts reconstruction

2021· preprint· en· W3157959541 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Toussaint, Roger Lecomte, Jean‐Pierre Dussault

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Iterative reconstructionProjection (relational algebra)Imaging phantomAlgorithmPhysicsHistogramReconstruction algorithmPositron emission tomographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)OpticsNuclear medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low counts reconstruction remains a challenge for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) even with the recent progresses in time-of-flight (TOF) resolution. In that setting, the bias between the acquired histogram, composed of low values or zeros, and the expected histogram, obtained from the forward projector, is propagated to the image, resulting in a biased reconstruction. This could be exacerbated with finer resolution of the TOF information, which further sparsify the acquired histogram. We propose a new approach to circumvent this limitation of the classical reconstruction model. It consists of extending the parametrization of the reconstruction scheme to also explicitly include the projection domain. This parametrization has greater degrees of freedom than the log-likelihood model, which can not be harnessed in classical circumstances. We hypothesize that with ultra-fast TOF this new approach would not only be viable for low counts reconstruction but also more adequate than the classical reconstruction model. An implementation of this approach is compared to the log-likelihood model by using two-dimensional simulations of a hot spots phantom. The proposed model achieves similar contrast recovery coefficients as MLEM except for the smallest structures where the low counts nature of the simulations makes it difficult to draw conclusions. Also, this new model seems to converge toward a less noisy solution than the MLEM. These results suggest that this new approach has potential for low counts reconstruction with ultra-fast TOF.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→