MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243352034 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11460

Quantitative Imaging With a Pinhole Cardiac SPECT CZT Camera

2016· dissertation· en· W4243352034 on OpenAlexafffund
Amir Pourmoghaddas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsImaging phantomCorrection for attenuationNoise (video)Pinhole (optics)Gamma cameraNuclear medicineOpticsAttenuationPhysicsMaterials scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work develops methods to quantify absolute activity measurements with a multi-head pinhole cardiac SPECT camera that uses cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) detectors (Discovery NM530c, GE Healthcare).A central component of absolute activity quantification is the correction for Compton scattered photons.A modified Dual Energy Window (DEW) scatter correction (SC) method was developed that compensates for the presence of unscattered photons in the lower-energy window used to measure scatter.The DEW-SC method was validated using phantom experiments.The mean error in absolute activity measurement was 5 ± 4 % when correcting for attenuation, scatter and the partial volume effects.Clinical accuracy was assessed using 99m Tc-tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion images obtained on the NM530c and compared to DEW scatter-corrected images acquired on a conventional SPECT camera for the same patient.DEW-SC images acquired on the NM530c had increased noise but had summed perfusion scores that were not significantly different from those acquired on the conventional SPECT camera.To reduce noise in scatter corrected images and provide a more accurate estimate of scatter, a model-based SC method was developed based on the analytical photon distribution (APD) approach.Using physical phantom experiments and a set of five clinical studies, the accuracy of APD-SC was evaluated and compared to DEW-SC.Images generated using the model-based method agreed well with acquired data.APD-SC images had lower noise than DEW-SC images and provided a more accurate measure of cardiac activity in high-scatter scenarios.The developed methods List of AppendicesAppendix A -The 17 segment model……….….………………………………………………….

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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