MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414084430 · doi:10.1002/mp.18108

A novel direct‐indirect dual‐layer flat‐panel detector for contrast‐enhanced breast imaging: Experimental assessment

2025· article· en· W4414084430 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyu Duan, Hailiang Huang, Salman M. Arnab, Yves Chevalier, Luc Laperrière, Adrian Howansky, Wei Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Radiography and Breast Imaging
Canadian institutionsAnalogic (Canada)Cégep de Saint-Laurent
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDetectorMedical imagingMammographyFilter (signal processing)Breast imagingBreast tissueMatched filter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CEDBT), low-energy (LE) and high-energy (HE) images are acquired after injection of iodine contrast agent. Weighted subtraction is then applied to generate dual-energy (DE) images, where normal breast tissues are suppressed, leaving iodinated objects enhanced. Currently, clinical systems employ a dual-shot (DS) method, where LE and HE images are acquired with two separate exposures. However, patient motion between these exposures can cause residual breast tissue structure to appear in the recombined DE images, reducing the visibility of iodinated lesions. To address this issue, we propose a direct-indirect dual-layer flat-panel detector (DI-DLFPD), which eliminates patient motion artifact by acquiring LE and HE images simultaneously. PURPOSE: This study aims to: (1) experimentally validate CEDM and CEDBT imaging using a first-generation prototype DI-DLFPD, (2) compare lesion conspicuity with images obtained using the DS method, (3) optimize the k-edge filter for the DI-DLFPD based on breast thickness. METHODS: CEDM and CEDBT images were acquired using both the prototype DI-DLFPD and a conventional DS single-layer detector at comparable dose levels to evaluate image quality and iodine target conspicuity. The figure of merit (FOM) was defined as the square of signal difference to noise ratio (SDNR) divided by the mean glandular dose. The selection of k-edge filter for DI-DLFPD was assessed based on varying breast thickness. RESULTS: By eliminating patient motion artifacts, DI-DLFPD images exhibit a significant improvement (∼233%) in iodine object FOM compared to DS images affected by patient motion. Iodine quantification accuracy was also improved. The results suggest using a sliver filter for average breast thickness (4 cm) and a Tin filter for thicker breasts (8 cm) to achieve optimal iodine SDNR for DI-DLFPD. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents experimental results from the first-generation prototype DI-DLFPD for CEDM and CEDBT. A practical strategy was recommended, where the x-ray filter for DI-DLFPD was optimized based on the compressed breast thickness.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicDigital Radiography and Breast ImagingFrench-language works237,207