Flat-panel conebeam CT in the clinic: history and current state
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
), for visualization of small contrast-filled vessels, bones, or teeth, was an imaging requirement that could not be met by the contemporaneous CT scanners. However, the use of nonlinear imagers, e.g., x-ray image intensifiers, limited the clinical utility of the earliest diagnostic conebeam CT systems. The development of consumer-electronics large-area displays provided a technical foundation that was leveraged in the 1990s to first produce large-area digital x-ray detectors for use in radiography and then compact flat panels suitable for high-resolution and high-frame-rate conebeam CT. In this review, we show the concurrent evolution of digital flat panel (DFP) technology and clinical conebeam CT. We give a brief summary of conebeam CT reconstruction, followed by a brief review of the correction approaches for DFP-specific artifacts. The historical development and current status of flat-panel conebeam CT in four clinical areas-breast, fixed C-arm, image-guided radiation therapy, and extremity/head-is presented. Advances in DFP technology over the past two decades have led to improved visualization of high-contrast, high-resolution clinical tasks, and image quality now approaches the soft-tissue contrast resolution that is the standard in clinical CT. Future technical developments in DFPs will enable an even broader range of clinical applications; research in the arena of flat-panel CT shows no signs of slowing down.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it