MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411972660 · doi:10.4103/jmp.jmp_191_24

Influence of Field of View and Bowtie Filtration on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Image Quality and Scatter-to-Primary Ratio

2025· article· en· W4411972660 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCone beam computed tomographyFiltration (mathematics)Image qualityOpticsField of viewCone (formal languages)Beam (structure)Quality (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Nuclear medicineComputed tomographyImage (mathematics)MathematicsPhysicsMedicineRadiologyStatisticsComputer visionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose/Aim: The image quality (IQ) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is often reduced due to X-ray scatter, causing issues such as shading, skin-line artifacts, decreased contrast-to-noise ratio, and inaccurate computed tomography (CT) numbers. This study establishes six metrics for assessing IQ, focusing on both traditional metrics, such as contrast-to-noise ratio, and clinically relevant measures of CT signal accuracy. Using a commercial CBCT system for image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), the study examines how these metrics vary with axial field-of-view (FOV z ) and bowtie filter use to understand the effects of X-ray scatter on IQ. Materials and Methods: Catphan-600 phantom was scanned at five longitudinal FOV z settings (2–27 cm, Superior-Inferior) with and without a bowtie filter, and all software-based scatter corrections were disabled. Six metrics were evaluated: shading (m shading ), periphery accuracy (m periphery ), noise (m noise ), contrast-to-noise ratio (m CNR ), CT number accuracy (m CT# ), and linearity (m linearity ). Results: All six metrics demonstrated a notable decline in IQ as the FOV z increased from 2 to 27 cm. Specifically, the CNR decreased by half, while m shading increased by 250 HU. The bowtie filter improved CT number accuracy at the periphery by approximately 100–140 HU, partially mitigating the impact of a larger FOV z on IQ. Conclusions: As the FOV z increases, quantitative assessments reveal significant artifacts. Using a bowtie filter improves CNR and CT number accuracy while reducing shading and skin-line artifacts. For enhanced IQ in clinical therapy, minimizing the FOV z is recommended. The evaluation framework established in this study provides a valuable tool for system comparison and assessing scatter correction techniques, aiding in accurate low-contrast detection and supporting advancements in online and adaptive radiotherapy.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.342 · 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