MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Photon-counting detector step-wedge calibration enabling water and iodine material decomposition

2024· article· en· W4396856213 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Antoine Rodesch, Devon Richtsmeier, Kevin Murphy, Kris Iniewski, Magdalena Bazalova‐Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Instrumentation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsRedlen Technologies (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWedge (geometry)Photon countingCalibrationDetectorPhotonOpticsDecompositionIodineMaterials sciencePhysicsOptoelectronicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) has demonstrated improvements in conventional image quality compared to energy integrating detector (EID) CT. PCD-CT has the advantage of being able to operate in conventional and spectral mode simultaneously by sorting photons according to selected energy thresholds. However, to reconstruct spectral images PCD-CT requires extensive calibration and specifically fine-tuning a spectral response. This response is then used to perform material decomposition (MD). We propose a step-wedge phantom made of water and iodine to calibrate a prototype PCD-CT system. Four methods were tested and compared based on calibration accuracy and CT image quality. The exhaustive PCD response was not well calibrated, but a reduced model was defined that was able to perform accurate water/iodine MD and to reduce the ring artifact intensity. The impact of the number of energy bins (from two to seven) was also studied. The number of bins did not affect the spectral accuracy. However, compared to the two energy bin configuration, the seven bin configuration decreased the noise by 10% and 15% in the water and iodine maps, respectively. The model was tested on ex-vivo tissue samples injected with iodine to demonstrate the results of the water/iodine MD on biological materials.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of InstrumentationSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207