MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Establishing error bounds for internal calibration of quantitative computed tomography

2024· article· en· W4390979449 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryn E. Matheson, Nathan J. Neeteson, Steven K. Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImaging phantomCalibrationVoxelQuantitative computed tomographyMonte Carlo methodGround truthBone mineralComputer scienceAlgorithmInternal radiationObservational errorPropagation of uncertaintyNuclear medicineMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsOsteoporosisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opportunistic computed tomography (CT) scans, which can assess relevant osteoporotic bones of interest, offer a potential solution for identifying osteoporotic individuals. CT scans usually do not contain calibration phantoms, so internal calibration methods have been developed to create a voxel-specific density calibration that can be used in opportunistic CT. It remains a challenge, however, to account for potential sources of error in internal calibration, such as beam hardening or heterogeneous internal reference tissues. The purpose of this work was to introduce our internal calibration method that accounts for these variations and to estimate error bounds for the bone mineral density (BMD) measurements taken from internally calibrated scans. The error bounds are derived by incorporating a combination of a Monte Carlo simulation and standard error propagation into our previously established internal calibration method. A cohort of 138 clinical abdominal CT scans were calibrated for BMD assessment with a phantom placed in the field of view and used as the ground truth. Our modified internal calibration method provided error bounds on the same images and was tested to contain the ground truth phantom-calibrated BMD. This was repeated using 10 different internal reference tissue combinations to explore how error bounds are affected by the choice of internal tissue referents. We found that the tissue combination of air, skeletal muscle, and cortical bone yielded the most accurate BMD estimates while maintaining error bounds that were sufficiently conservative to account for sources of error such as beam hardening and heterogeneous tissue samples. The mean difference between the phantom BMD and the BMD resulting from the tissue combination of air, skeletal muscle and cortical bone was 2.12 mg/cc (0.06% BMD error) and 1.13 mg/cc (0.02 % BMD error) for the left and right femur, respectively. Providing error bounds for internal calibration provides a method to explore the influence of internal reference tissues and confidence for BMD estimates.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207