Make it count with photon-counting computed tomography: a revolution in technology for investigating the airways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Extract</title> Computed tomography (CT) imaging is the mainstay for high-resolution clinical and research evaluation of the lungs for nodule detection, monitoring and measurement of emphysema and airways disease, and diagnosis and monitoring of interstitial lung abnormalities [1]. High-resolution CT also enables virtual bronchoscopy to non-invasively visualise the lumen of the tracheobronchial tree [2], similar to the path taken by a fibreoptic bronchoscope. While CT technology has substantially advanced over the past five decades, to enable rapid acquisition of such high-resolution images, repeated exposure to ionising radiation remains a significant concern, especially in young persons and females of child-bearing age [3, 4]. Moreover, the lower limit of CT spatial resolution has been largely fixed by detector technology and available computing power. For thoracic CTs, these shortcomings have meant significant radiation exposure over a relatively large field-of-view (for patients) to achieve a (modest) spatial resolution of ∼0.5–1.0 mm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".