[A method for sensitivity analysis of deviation factor for geometric correction of cone-beam CT system].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To propose a sensitivity test method for geometric correction position deviation of cone-beam CT systems. METHODS: We proposed the definition of center deviation and its derivation. We analyzed the influence of the variation of the three-dimensional spatial center of the steel ball point, the projection center and the size of the steel ball point on the deviation of geometric parameters and the reconstructed image results by calculating the geometric correction parameters based on the Noo analytical method using the FDK reconstruction algorithm for image reconstruction. RESULTS: The radius of the steel ball point was within 3 mm. The deviation of the center of the calibration parameter was within the order of magnitude and negligible. A 10% Gaussian perturbation of a single pixel in the 3D spatial coordinates of the steel ball point produced a deviation of about 3 pixel sizes, while the same Gaussian perturbation of the 2D projection coordinates of the steel ball point produced a deviation of about 2 pixel sizes. CONCLUSION: The geometric correction is more sensitive to the deviation generated by the three-dimensional spatial coordinates of the steel ball point with limited sensitivity to the deviation generated by the two-dimensional projection coordinates of the steel ball point. The deviation sensitivity of a small diameter steel ball point can be ignored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".