MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4238533508 · doi:10.1118/1.2030979

Sci-PM Thurs - 09: A semianalytic model to extract differential linear scattering coefficients of breast tissue from energy dispersive x-ray diffraction measurements

2005· article· en· W4238533508 on OpenAlexaff
R. J. LeClair, M Boileau, L Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffractionCollimated lightScatteringOpticsCadmium zinc tellurideDetectorDiffractometerPhysicsAperture (computer memory)Materials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our research group is focused on determining the potential applications of using x-ray diffraction signals to diagnosis breast cancer. We have built a custom made x-ray diffractometer system. Polyenergetic 50 kV beams collimated down to a 3 mm diameter are incident on 5 mm diameter 5 mm thick samples. A cadmium zinc telluride detector is positioned at an angle θ with respect to the center of the target. We use our semianalytic model coupled with energy dispersive x-ray diffraction measurements to extract differential linear scattering coefficients in units of m−1 sr−1. We optimize our system with as our target since good x-ray diffraction data is available. A 2-mm diameter aperture is positioned in front of our detector and the target to detector distance is ≈ 40 cm. We use a root-mean-square deviation to measure the overall agreement between our data and the gold standard. We get values of 1.6 and 2.0 m−1 sr−1 for scatter angles of 13° and 16° and values of 3.4, 2.5, 2.1, 2.8, 1.8 m−1 sr−1 for angles 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11. These values are obtained after correcting our data for fluorescence escape and hole tailing. However, the values are nearly the same even if we don't correct the data. At this stage, more optimization is required. Our preliminary results for breast tissue agree well with data measured by Kidane et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 1791–1802 (1999). We intend to correlate the x-ray diffraction and cellular pathology signals of breast tissue.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→