MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018818555 · doi:10.1118/1.3476098

Sci—Thur PM: YIS — 03: Design and Performance Evaluation of Detector Modules for Positron Emission Mammography Imagers

2010· article· en· W2018818555 on OpenAlexaff
SG Cuddy, D Green, A. Reznik, J. A. Rowlands, Farhad Taghibakhsh

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicon photomultiplierScintillatorLyso-DetectorPhotodetectorScintillationOpticsPhysicsOptoelectronicsImage resolutionMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) is a valuable molecular imaging technique used to visualize to both invasive and pre‐invasive lesions in the breast. While maintaining spatial resolution of 1–2 mm, a reduction of patient dose is required in order to use PEM in clinical metastatic cancer prevention studies. We are working to enable depth of interaction (DOI) measurements using a detector module design with photodetectors on either end of a scintillation crystal array to allow for increased detection efficiency. While typical dual‐ended readout designs couple one photodetector to either end of one crystal, we propose reducing readout requirements by enlarging the photodetectors such that one detector may readout one end of multiple scintillators. We simulated a dual‐ended detector module with photodetectors appropriately sized for 4 detectors to readout each end of a 3×3, 5×5, and 6×6 scintillation crystal array. Our work found that detector modules can accommodate up to 5×5 scintillators while achieving accurate crystal index identification and depth of interaction resolution of 1.33 mm. Based on this optimization, a detector module was assembled for both the single‐ and dual‐ended readout configurations using a 6×6 LYSO scintillation crystal array coupled to a 4×4 SiPM array. We successfully resolved all 36 scintillators in the single‐ended configuration verifying that large sized SiPM pixels may be used to accurately identify smaller pixelated scintillators. We are continuing this work for the dual‐ended configuration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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