MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054128984 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/3/661

Imaging performance of LabPET APD-based digital PET scanners for pre-clinical research

2014· article· en· W2054128984 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélanie Bergeron, J. Cadorette, Marc‐André Tétrault, Jean-François Beaudoin, Jean‐Daniel Leroux, Réjean Fontaine, Roger Lecomte

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNIH Clinical CenterFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLyso-Imaging phantomScannerImage resolutionAvalanche photodiodeOpticsPhysicsDetectorSilicon photomultiplierEnergy (signal processing)Image qualityScintillationResolution (logic)Field of viewNuclear medicineComputer scienceScintillatorArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The LabPET is an avalanche photodiode (APD) based digital PET scanner with quasi-individual detector read-out and highly parallel electronic architecture for high-performance in vivo molecular imaging of small animals. The scanner is based on LYSO and LGSO scintillation crystals (2×2×12/14 mm3), assembled side-by-side in phoswich pairs read out by an APD. High spatial resolution is achieved through the individual and independent read-out of an individual APD detector for recording impinging annihilation photons. The LabPET exists in three versions, LabPET4 (3.75 cm axial length), LabPET8 (7.5 cm axial length) and LabPET12 (11.4 cm axial length). This paper focuses on the systematic characterization of the three LabPET versions using two different energy window settings to implement a high-efficiency mode (250–650 keV) and a high-resolution mode (350–650 keV) in the most suitable operating conditions. Prior to measurements, a global timing alignment of the scanners and optimization of the APD operating bias have been carried out. Characteristics such as spatial resolution, absolute sensitivity, count rate performance and image quality have been thoroughly investigated following the NEMA NU 4-2008 protocol. Phantom and small animal images were acquired to assess the scanners' suitability for the most demanding imaging tasks in preclinical biomedical research. The three systems achieve the same radial FBP spatial resolution at 5 mm from the field-of-view center: 1.65/3.40 mm (FWHM/FWTM) for an energy threshold of 250 keV and 1.51/2.97 mm for an energy threshold of 350 keV. The absolute sensitivity for an energy window of 250–650 keV is 1.4%/2.6%/4.3% for LabPET4/8/12, respectively. The best count rate performance peaking at 362 kcps is achieved by the LabPET12 with an energy window of 250–650 keV and a mouse phantom (2.5 cm diameter) at an activity of 2.4 MBq ml−1. With the same phantom, the scatter fraction for all scanners is about 17% for an energy threshold of 250 keV and 10% for an energy threshold of 350 keV. The results obtained with two energy window settings confirm the relevance of high-efficiency and high-resolution operating modes to take full advantage of the imaging capabilities of the LabPET scanners for molecular imaging applications.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207