MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AN EVALUATION OF GERMANIUM DETECTORS EMPLOYED FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF RADIONUCLIDES DEPOSITED IN LUNGS USING AN EXPERIMENTAL AND MONTE CARLO APPROACH

2001· article· en· W2086380845 on OpenAlexaff
Gary H. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermaniumSemiconductor detectorDetectorCounting efficiencyMonte Carlo methodImaging phantomMaterials sciencePhotonOpticsPhysicsOptoelectronicsMathematicsSilicon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was undertaken to evaluate the performance of an advanced design broad energy germanium detector for the in vivo measurement of radionuclides in lungs. Relative counting efficiency, background, and sensitivity for lung counting arrays consisting of four, three, and two 80-mm-diameter by 20-mm-thick (80 x 20 mm) broad energy germanium detectors were simulated by collecting spectra with the single 80 x 20 mm broad energy germanium at each of four locations over a humanoid torso phantom. Regions of interest were evaluated for photon energies ranging from 17 to 1,500 keV. The 80 x 20 mm detector arrays were then benchmarked against a standard array of four 70-mm-diameter by 20-mm-thick (70 x 20 mm) broad energy germanium detectors. Since testing new equipment can be an expensive and time consuming process, an alternative approach, using Monte Carlo simulations instead of physical measurements, was also evaluated and compared to experimental data. With this approach, counting efficiency and minimum detectable amount were simulated for two sizes of germanium detectors (70 mm and 80 mm diameter) at four different crystal thicknesses (15, 20, 25, and 30 mm). For the experimental measurements, arrays consisting of three and four 80 x 20 mm broad energy germanium detectors resulted in an increase in counting efficiencies, relative to the standard array, at all photon energies. The greatest relative increase was observed for the four-detector array (24-35%). In contrast, counting efficiency decreased, relative to the standard array, by 24-28% with a two-detector array. Arrays consisting of two and three 80 x 20 mm broad energy germanium detectors resulted in decreased relative background at all photon energies, with the exception of the 946 keV photon for the three-detector array. The most significant decrease in background occurred with the two-detector array (28 to 40%), while background was increased by 18-43% for the four-detector array. Arrays consisting of three and four 80 x 20 mm broad energy germanium detectors resulted in increased relative sensitivity at all photon energies. The three-detector array provided the greatest sensitivity at photon energies below 344 keV. The four-detector array provided slightly better measurement sensitivity at photon energies greater than 344 keV. The two 80 x 20 mm detector array provided sensitivity unexpectedly comparable to the standard array. Monte Carlo predictions on how size affects counting efficiency and minimum detectable amount agreed well with the experimental results. From the Monte Carlo predictions, the effect of detector thickness on counting efficiency was unimportant at photon energies up to 60 keV and independent of detector diameter. At higher photon energies for both detector diameters, the counting efficiency decreased as the thickness decreased. The values of minimum detectable amount for the 70-mm and 80-mm diameter detectors did not differ by more than 15% at 17 keV or 20% at 60 keV when compared to detectors of equivalent thickness. Minimum detectable amount increased slightly at 17 keV and rose by approximately 52% at 660 keV, with decreases in thickness from 30 mm to 15 mm.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207