MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129495845 · doi:10.1007/s11307-012-0546-2

A Cone-Shaped Phantom for Assessment of Small Animal PET Scatter Fraction and Count Rate Performance

2012· article· en· W2129495845 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rameshwar Prasad, Habib Zaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Imaging and Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungUniversité de SherbrookeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsImaging phantomMaterials sciencePhysicsMonte Carlo methodPositron emission tomographyScannerNuclear medicineImage qualityField of viewOpticsBiomedical engineeringMathematicsMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) image quality deteriorates as the object size increases owing to increased detection of scattered and random events. The characterization of the scatter component in small animal PET imaging has received little attention owing to the small scatter fraction (SF) when imaging rodents. The purpose of this study is first to design and fabricate a cone-shaped phantom which can be used for measurement of object size-dependent SF and noise equivalent count rates (NECR), and second, to assess these parameters for two small animal PET scanners as function of radial offset, object size and lower energy threshold (LET). METHODS: The X-PET™ and LabPET-8™ scanners were modeled as realistically as possible using GATE Monte Carlo simulation platform. The simulation models were validated against experimental measurements in terms of sensitivity, SF and NECR. The dedicated phantom was fabricated in-house using high-density polyethylene. The optimized dimensions of the cone-shaped phantom are 158 mm (length), 20 mm (minimum diameter), 70 mm (maximum diameter) and taper angle of 9°. RESULTS: The relative difference between simulated and experimental results for the LabPET-8™ scanner varied between 0.7% and 10% except for a few results where it was below 16%. Depending on the radial offset from the center of the central axial field-of-view (3-6 cm diameter), the SF for the cone-shaped phantom varied from 26.3% to 18.2%, 18.6 to 13.1% and 10.1 to 7.6% for the X-PET™, whereas it varied from 34.4% to 26.9%, 19.1 to 17.0% and 9.1 to 7.3% for the LabPET-8™, for LETs of 250, 350 and 425 keV, respectively. The SF increases as the radial offset decreases, LET decreases and object size increases. The SF is higher for the LabPET-8™ compared with the X-PET™ scanner. The NECR increases as the radial offset increases and object size decreases. The maximum NECR was obtained at a LET of 350 keV for the LabPET-8™ and 250 keV for the X-PET™. High correlation coefficients for SF and NECR were observed between the cone-shaped phantom and an equivalent volume cylindrical phantom for the three considered axial fields of view. CONCLUSIONS: A single cone-shaped phantom enables the assessment of the impact of three factors, namely radial offset, LET and object size on PET SF and count rate estimates. This phantom is more realistic owing to the non-uniform shape of rodents' bodies compared to cylindrical uniform phantoms and seems to be well suited for evaluation of object size-dependent SF and NECR.

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 score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Imaging and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207