MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1440091026 · doi:10.1186/2197-7364-2-s1-a54

First results from a high-resolution small animal PET insert for PET/MRI imaging

2015· article· en· W1440091026 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew L. Goertzen, Greg Stortz, Jonathan D. Thiessen, D. Bishop, Piotr Kozłowski, F. Retière, Graham Schellenberg, Vesna Sossi, Christopher J. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalTRIUMFLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyso-Silicon photomultiplierDetectorScintillatorImage resolutionField of viewData acquisitionNuclear medicineAnalyserRadiofrequency coilOpticsMaterials scienceElectromagnetic coilPhysicsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have recently completed construction of a high resolution small animal PET insert designed for operation inside a Bruker 7T MRI. The PET insert is designed to achieve a 1 mm spatial resolution in the centre of its field of view (FOV) and fit within the 114 mm inner diameter of the Bruker BGA-12S gradient coil while accommodating the Bruker 35 mm volume RF coil (outer diameter 60 mm). The PET insert is a ring geometry with a single ring of 16 detectors. Each detector uses a dual layer offset (DLO) LYSO scintillator array (bottom/top layer: 22x10/21x9 of 1.2x1.2x6/4 mm crystals, 409 crystals per block), with total axial extent of 28.3 mm, readout by two SensL SPMArray4B SiPM arrays. The detector outputs are multiplexed to four signals using a custom readout board and digitized using the OpenPET data acquisition platform. Detector flood image quality is sufficient to resolve >99% of the crystals in the system. The average energy resolution of the 6544 crystals is 11.94%+/-1.77% at 511keV. MR compatibility testing of the complete PET system conducted with a 7T Bruker Avance III MRI showed that the operating PET insert had no effect on MRI image homogeneity and only a small effect on EPI signal to noise ratio (SNR) (-15%). Initial PET data were collected using a Ge68 line source with the PET system on the benchtop. For this first acquisition, the OpenPET system was operating in oscilloscope mode, limiting the total singles event rate to 18kcps. The sinogram and initial reconstructed images showed no obvious artefacts. We have recently implemented an OpenPET firmware upgrade that will support a singles rate of 280kcps; this will allow us to acquire first simultaneous phantom and mouse PET/MR images.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207