Computationally efficient collimator-detector response compensation in high energy SPECT using 1D convolutions and rotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Modeling of the collimator-detector response (CDR) in single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) reconstruction enables improved resolution and accuracy, and is thus important for quantitative imaging applications such as dosimetry. The implementation of CDR modeling, however, can become a computational bottleneck when there are substantial components of septal penetration and scatter in the acquired data, since a direct convolution-based approach requires large 2D kernels. This work proposes a 1D convolution and rotation-based CDR model that reduces reconstruction times but maintains consistency with models that employ 2D convolutions. To enable open-source development and use of these models in image reconstruction, we release a SPECTPSFToolbox repository for the PyTomography project on GitHub. Approach. A 1D/rotation-based CDR model was formulated and subsequently fit to Monte Carlo (MC) point source data representative of 177Lu, 131I, and 225Ac imaging. Computation times of (i) the proposed 1D/rotation-based model and (ii) a traditional model that uses 2D convolutions were compared for typical SPECT matrix sizes. Both CDR models were then used in the reconstruction of MC, physical phantom, and patient data; the models were compared by quantifying total counts in hot regions of interest (ROIs) and activity contrast between hot ROIs and background regions. Results. For typical matrix sizes in SPECT reconstruction, application of the 1D/rotation-based model provides a two-fold computational speed-up over the 2D model when running on GPU. Only small differences between the 1D/rotation-based and 2D models (order of 1%) were obtained for count and contrast quantification in select ROIs. Significance. A technique for CDR modeling in SPECT was proposed that (i) significantly speeds up reconstruction times, and (ii) yields nearly identical reconstructions to traditional 2D convolution based CDR techniques. The released toolbox will permit open-source development of similar models for different isotopes and collimators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".