MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109793321 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5333639

A pulse simulator for crystal identification validation of phoswich detectors used in positron emission tomography

2009· article· en· W2109793321 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hoorvash Camilia Yousefzadeh, Roger Lecomte, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorScintillationPulse shapingScannerPhysicsOpticsNuclear electronicsNoise (video)Image resolutionPositron emission tomographyPulse generatorComputer scienceElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crystal identification (CI) of phoswich detectors is a technique used in positron emission tomography (PET) for improving spatial resolution through depth-of-interaction determination or higher pixelization. Digital algorithms using advanced digital signal processing techniques currently provide the most powerful approaches for CI of phoswich detectors made of crystals with only slightly different scintillation decay times. Such methods can be implemented in the all-digital architecture of LabPET, a small animal PET scanner developed in Sherbrooke, for fast and accurate real-time CI. In order to validate the new CI algorithms and assess their performance for different front-end electronics, a pulse generator simulator was developed to generate PET signals and investigate the effects of factors such as electronic noise, photon statistics and pulse shaping filter. The pulse generator was validated with LabPET-like pulses and CI results were compared with experimental data. The pulse simulator enables CI algorithms to be validated together with detector performance such as energy and timing resolution at an early stage of scanner design.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207