MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116687312 · doi:10.1109/tns.2015.2425794

Automatic Channel Fault Detection and Diagnosis System for a Small Animal APD-Based <newline/>Digital PET Scanner

2015· article· en· W2116687312 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Charest, Jean-François Beaudoin, J. Cadorette, Roger Lecomte, Charles-Antoine Brunet, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFault detection and isolationScannerChannel (broadcasting)Computer scienceCalibrationFault (geology)Sensitivity (control systems)Artificial intelligenceReal-time computingElectronic engineeringComputer visionEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault detection and diagnosis is critical to many applications in order to ensure proper operation and performance over time. Positron emission tomography (PET) systems that require regular calibrations by qualified scanner operators are good candidates for such continuous improvements. Furthermore, for scanners employing one-to-one coupling of crystals to photodetectors to achieve enhanced spatial resolution and contrast, the calibration task is even more daunting because of the large number of independent channels involved. To cope with the additional complexity of the calibration and quality control procedures of these scanners, an intelligent system (IS) was designed to perform fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) of malfunctioning channels. The IS can be broken down into four hierarchical modules: parameter extraction, diagnosis, channel fault detection and fault prioritization. Of these modules, parameter extraction and fault detection have previously been reported and this paper focuses on diagnosis, improved fault detection and fault prioritization. The status diagnosis module will diagnose all channels and propose an explanation of the reasons that lead to the diagnosis. The purpose of the fault prioritization module is to help the operator to zero in on the faults that need immediate attention. The FDD system was implemented on a LabPET avalanche photodiode (APD)-based digital PET scanner. Experiments demonstrated a FDD Sensitivity of 99.9% (with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [99.6, 100.0]) for major faults. Globally, the balanced accuracy of the diagnosis for varying fault severities is 91%. This suggests the IS can greatly benefit the operators in their maintenance task.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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