MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109814699 · doi:10.1109/tns.2005.862964

PET Detector Quality Assurance Using$^137$Cs Singles Transmission Imaging

2006· article· en· W2109814699 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Wassenaar, Robert A. deKemp

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorProtocol (science)Quality assuranceComputer scienceCoincidenceScannerTransmission (telecommunications)Data acquisitionCalibrationComputer hardwareAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringMedicineTelecommunicationsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Daily quality assurance of positron emission tomography detectors, to ensure accurate efficiency calibration of the system, typically requires the acquisition of coincidence data from a flood source. To obtain sufficient counts, long scan times on the order of an hour are required. The long acquisition time and necessity of an external activity source may make such a protocol impractical for daily use. A new protocol has been demonstrated for the ECAT ART scanner, using the two <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$^137$</tex> Cs transmission sources. The new protocol produces a map of the counts per detector, as well as plots of the mean and standard deviation of the detector counts in a given block. Graphical outputs allow for quick recognition of problematic areas. The factory protocol requires 90 min to obtain a 1% statistical error on the individual detector counts. Due to the high activity of the <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$^137$</tex> Cs sources, a 1% statistical error is obtained with an 8 min scan using the new protocol. The new protocol provides information regarding the status of all blocks, reduces acquisition time, and alleviates the need for an external activity source. The protocol presented in this study can be implemented on other <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$^137$</tex> Cs transmission based scanners, and with coincidence flood sources if detector-specific singles histogramming is available.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207