Bibliographic record
Abstract
PET (positron emission tomography) scans are still in the experimental phase, as one of the newest breast cancer diagnostic techniques. There are two traditional approaches to the computation of images from data collected in PET. In the first, standard CT (computed tomography) algorithms are used on rays designated by pairs of detectors receiving coincidence events. The problem generated by this approach is that generally only the mean can be used by such algorithms. With the relatively small numbers of events in PET, and with Poisson statistics for which variance equals the mean, the noise sensitivity of standard CT algorithms becomes limiting. This is exasperated further by 3D imaging with cylindrical arrays of detectors. Statistical CT algorithms take the variance into account. As in the list-mode approach, we consider each coincidence event individually. However, we estimate the location of the annihilation event that caused each coincidence event, one by one, based on the previously assigned location of events processed earlier. The estimated annihilation locations form the image. To accomplish this, we construct a probability distribution along each coincidence line. This is generated from previous annihilation points by density estimation. In this paper we present our density estimation approach to positron emission tomography. Nonparametric methods of density estimation are overviewed followed by numerical examples. Our goal here is to determine which density estimation approach is most suitable for PET.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".