MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388440954 · doi:10.1016/j.prro.2023.10.014

Novel Technology Allowing Cone Beam Computed Tomography in 6 Seconds: A Patient Study of Comparative Image Quality

2023· article· en· W4388440954 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Radiation Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Cancer CentreNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersQEII FoundationVarian Medical Systems
KeywordsCone beam computed tomographyMedicineComputed tomographyImage qualityImage-guided radiation therapyCone (formal languages)Medical physicsQuality (philosophy)TomographyCone beam ctBeam (structure)Nuclear medicineRadiologyImage (mathematics)Computer visionOpticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the image quality provided by a novel cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) platform (HyperSight, Varian Medical Systems), a platform with enhanced reconstruction algorithms as well as rapid acquisition times. Image quality was compared with both status quo CBCT for image guidance, and to fan beam CT (FBCT) acquired on a CT simulator (CTsim). METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a clinical study, 30 individuals were recruited for whom either deep inspiration (DIBH) or deep exhalation breath hold (DEBH) was used during imaging and radiation treatment of tumors involving liver, lung, breast, abdomen, chest wall, and pancreatic sites. All subjects were imaged during breath hold with CBCT on a standard image guidance platform (TrueBeam 2.7, Varian Medical Systems) and FBCT CT (CTsim, GE Optima). HyperSight imaging with both breath hold (HSBH) and free breathing (HSFB) was performed in a single session. The 4 image sets thus acquired were registered and compared using metrics quantifying artifact index, image nonuniformity, contrast, contrast-to-noise ratio, and difference of Hounsfield unit (HU) from CTsim. RESULTS: HSBH provided less severe artifacts compared with both HSFB and TrueBeam. The severity of artifacts in HSBH images was similar to that in CTsim images, with statistically similar artifact index values. CTsim provided the best image uniformity; however, HSBH provided improved uniformity compared with both HSFB and TrueBeam. CTsim demonstrated elevated contrast compared with HyperSight imaging, but both HSBH and HSFB imaging showed superior contrast-to-noise ratio characteristics compared with TrueBeam. The median HU difference of HSBH from CTsim was within 1 HU for muscle/fat tissue, 12 HU for bone, and 14 HU for lung. CONCLUSIONS: The HyperSight system provides 6-second CBCT acquisition with image artifacts that are significantly reduced compared with TrueBeam and comparable to those in CTsim FBCT imaging. HyperSight breath hold imaging was of higher quality compared with free breathing imaging on the same system. The median HU value in HyperSight breath hold imaging is within 15 HU of that in CTsim imaging for muscle, fat, bone, and lung tissue types, indicating the utility of image data for direct dose calculation in adaptive workflows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.380 · 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