MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of a novel compressed sensing algorithm for reconstructing phase contrast CT images of the canine prostate

2013· article· en· W3177008027 on OpenAlexaffabout
James E. Montgomery, Zangen Zhu, Khan A. Wahid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreakCompressed sensingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionImage qualityProjection (relational algebra)Contrast (vision)Iterative reconstructionAlgorithmWavelet transformFeature (linguistics)Image (mathematics)WaveletPattern recognition (psychology)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phase contrast computed tomography (PC CT) represents a generational advance in medical and anatomical imaging with greatly improved spatial and soft tissue contrast resolution. Achieving good image quality with PC CT can require up to 4000 image projections leading to a high radiation dose and long image acquisition time. New image reconstruction methods would greatly reduce the number of projections without substantially sacrificing image quality. In sparse‐view imaging, strong streak artifacts may appear in conventionally reconstructed images, compromising image quality. Compressed sensing algorithm has shown potential to accurately recover images from highly incomplete data. The main feature of our algorithm is the use of two sparsity transforms: discrete wavelet transform and discrete gradient transform, both of which are proven to be powerful sparsity transforms. We reconstructed canine prostate images with filtered back projection and our compressed sensing algorithm using 50, 100, 120, 150, and 180 projections. Our results demonstrate that our proposed method can produce satisfactory images from only 150 projections. Research funding was provided by the Saskatchewan Health Research Fund.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAdvanced X-ray Imaging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207