Imaging of Weak-Source Distributions in LSO-Based Small-Animal PET Scanners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO)- or lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO)-based PET scanners have intrinsic radioactivity in the scintillator crystals due to the presence of (176)Lu, which decays by beta-emission followed by one or more prompt gamma-ray emissions. This leads to intrinsic true counts that can influence the image when scanning low levels of activity. An evaluation of the effects of this intrinsic activity for low levels of activity and different energy windows is performed on an LSO-based small-animal PET scanner. METHODS: Intrinsic count rate and sensitivity were measured for a range of lower-level discriminators (LLDs) ranging from 100 to 750 keV. The noise equivalent count rate (NECR) as a function of LLD for activity levels from 100 Bq to 100 kBq was estimated using a combination of measurement and previously published data for this scanner. Phantom imaging was performed using three (68)Ge sources of strength 55, 220, and 940 Bq and LLD levels of 250, 350, and 400 keV. The images were assessed using a contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) analysis and by comparing the observed ratio of source activities to the true ratio value. RESULTS: The intrinsic true count rate is reduced from 940 counts per second (cps) for a 250- to 750-keV energy window to <2 cps for a 400- to 750-keV window. There is a corresponding 2-fold drop in sensitivity for detected true events for external positron sources for these 2 energy windows. The NECR versus LLD curves showed a highly peaked shape, with the optimum LLD being approximately 425 keV. The phantom image results were dominated by the intrinsic true counts when an energy window of 250-750 keV was used. The intrinsic true counts were almost completely removed by raising the LLD to 400 keV. The CNR for each of the sources was higher for the narrow energy window and the 55 Bq could be easily visualized in images acquired with LLD levels of 350 and 400 keV but not when the 250-keV LLD was used. Images acquired with an LLD of 400 keV and reconstructed with 2-dimensional filtered backprojection were the most quantitatively accurate. CONCLUSION: It is possible to visualize sources of <1 kBq in LSO-based animal PET systems by raising the LLD to 400 keV to exclude the majority of the counts due to the intrinsic activity present in the LSO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".