MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221081584 · doi:10.1117/12.2611249

Quality versus quantity of dynamic CT perfusion images at isodose

2022· article· en· W4221081584 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin J. Chung, Ting‐Yim Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImage qualityQuality (philosophy)Nuclear medicineComputer visionMedicineImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-brain high temporal resolution CT perfusion (CTP) is now feasible with wide-detector row CT scanners, but the optimal dose distribution of dynamic images remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the accuracy of perfusion parameters estimated in digital perfusion phantoms generated at various temporal resolutions with fixed scan dose. In accordance with CTP guidelines, simulated dose was set to a time-density curve (TDC) noise of 10 HU at a sampling interval of 2.0 s over 60 s, and higher temporal resolutions of 1.0 and 0.5 s intervals were investigated at 14 and 20 HU of noise, respectively. Monte Carlo simulations with known ground truth perfusion were conducted to test the performance of model-independent and model-dependent deconvolution algorithms as a function of temporal resolution at isodose. Tissue TDCs were simulated by convolving gamma-variate, linear or boxcar residue functions with a patient arterial TDC before adding Gaussian noise at the appropriate level then sampling at the investigated temporal resolutions. A digital brain perfusion phantom with physiological ground truth perfusion was similarly investigated. Only cerebral blood flow (CBF) estimates with the model-dependent algorithm marginally improved at higher temporal resolution as indicated by mean absolute error (MAE; 7.1±4.6 ml/min/100 g at 0.5 s, 9.6±6.0 ml/min/100 g at 2.0 s) but not with the modelindependent algorithm (MAE: 11.6±11.4 ml/min/100 g at 0.5 s, 11.3±11.7 ml/min/100 g at 2.0 s). Higher temporal resolution did not improve parameter estimation in the brain perfusion phantom. For the investigated temporal resolutions and simulated CTP dose, dose distribution appears negligible.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207