MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128993200 · doi:10.1109/tns.2008.2000860

Crystal Identification Based on Recursive-Least-Squares and Least-Mean-Squares Auto-Regressive Models for Small Animal Pet

2008· article· en· W2128993200 on OpenAlexaff
Hicham Semmaoui, Nicolas Viscogliosi, François Bélanger, J.-B. Michaud, C. Pépin, Roger Lecomte, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorIdentification (biology)Computer scienceAlgorithmAutoregressive modelFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionsortParallaxLeast-squares function approximationMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most positron emission tomography (PET) scanners still partly rely on analog processing to sort out events from the PET detector front-end. Recent all-digital architectures enable the use of more complex algorithms to solve common problems in PET scanners, such as crystal identification and parallax error. Auto-regressive exogeneous variable (ARX) algorithms were shown to be among the most powerful methods of crystal identification by pulse shape discrimination (PSD) for parallax mitigation or resolution improvement with phoswich detectors. Although ARX algorithms achieve a nearly 100% discrimination accuracy even in a noisy environment, such methods are computationally expensive and can hardly be implemented in a real time digital PET system. A crystal identification method based on adaptive filter theory using an auto-regressive (AR) model is proposed to enable real time crystal identification in a noisy environment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207