MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550930548 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1991.259240

Depth of interaction in the scintillation camera: stochastic and geometric effects

2002· article· en· W1550930548 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Gagnon, N. Pouliot, Luc Laperrière, Jean‐Pierre Grégoire, A. Larry Arsenault

Bibliographic record

VenueConference Record of the 1991 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScintillationPhotomultiplierPosition (finance)PhysicsPhotonCrystal (programming language)OpticsSolid anglePerpendicularEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceDetectorGeometryMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stochastic nature of the DOI (depth of interaction) and its influence on various imaging parameters is described. Specific effects of the DOI on the PM (photomultiplier) response of gamma cameras have been quantified. In a typical camera configuration and 140-keV photons, the DOI alone can account for a 6.4-mm discrepancy in position and 12% in energy between two scintillations. Variation of the DOI can still bring additional distortions when photons do not enter the crystal perpendicularly, as in slant hole, cone beam, and other focusing collimators. With a 0.95-cm crystal and a 30 degrees slant angle, the obliquity factor can be responsible for a 5.5-mm variation in the event position. Results indicate that both geometrical and stochastic effects of the DOI are definitely reducing the camera performances and should be included in the image formation process.>

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference Record of the 1991 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging ConferenceSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207