Diagnostic Performance of a Prototype Dual-energy Chest Imaging System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the performance of a Dual-Energy chest radiography system.\nMethods: A cohort of 129 patients was recruited from population referred for CT guided biopsy of a lung lesion. Digital radiography (DR) and Dual Energy (DE) images were acquired. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) tests were performed to evaluate performance of DE images compared to DR. Five chest radiologists scored images. Performance was analyzed for all cases pooled and sub groups based on gender, nodule size, density, location, and chest diameter.\nResults: There was no significant difference between DE and DR for all cases (p = 0.61). There was a significant advantage for DE imaging of small nodules, and nodules located in right-upper lobe. (p = 0.02 and 0.01)\n\nConclusions: DE imaging demonstrated significant improvement in diagnosis of sub-centimeter lung nodules and lesions in the upper lung zones which are common characteristic of early stage lung malignancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".