MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W115091388

First images from a combined PET and field-cycled MRI system

2009· article· en· W115091388 on OpenAlexaff
Geron A. Bindseil, Timothy J. Scholl, William B. Handler, Kyle M. Gilbert, Blaine A. Chronik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGhostingImaging phantomScintillatorDetectorStreakOpticsNuclear medicinePhysicsField of viewMagnetComputer scienceMaterials scienceMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1530 Objectives Recent efforts to combine PET and MRI have either modified PET detectors to make them compatible with magnetic fields or changed the MR system to enable the use of conventional PMT-based PET detectors. The authors present the first hybrid images from a system that combines conventional PMT-based PET with field-cycled MRI (FCMRI). Methods The FCMRI system was operated by sequentially pulsing a 0.3-T polarizing magnet and a 94-mT readout magnet. During the cooling period of the resistive magnets, all magnetic fields were turned off to permit the operation of PMTs for PET imaging. Two PET detectors, each containing a BGO scintillator cut into 8x8 crystals with 6.5x5.5x30-mm3 pitch, were coupled to four PMTs and inserted into a 9-cm opening in the FCMRI system. A phantom consisting of a triangular puck containing three Na-22 point sources embedded into an onion was imaged. Since only two PET detectors were available, the phantom was rotated in a step and shot method and PET data were recombined post-acquisition. Results PET and MR images were superimposed. The layers of the onion are visible in the MR image and the positions of the three point sources are visible in the PET image. No major streak artifacts appear in the PET image and the MR image has no visible phase encode or ghosting artifacts. Conclusions The authors have demonstrated that dual modality PET/FCMRI imaging can be achieved without significant interference between modalities. PET performance was limited by the use of clinical detectors with coarse crystal pitch. Designs for a future PET/FCMRI system, currently in development, are based on the integration of a commercial small-animal PET system and a higher field-strength FCMRI system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→