MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150934099 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/56/12/010

Investigation of a clinical PET detector module design that employs large-area avalanche photodetectors

2011· article· en· W2150934099 on OpenAlexaff
Hao Peng, Peter D. Olcott, Virginia Spanoudaki, Craig S. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAPDSLyso-Avalanche photodiodeDetectorOpticsSilicon photomultiplierScintillatorScintillationPhotodetectorMonte Carlo methodMaterials sciencePhysicsOptoelectronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the feasibility of designing an Anger-logic PET detector module using large-area high-gain avalanche photodiodes (APDs) for a brain-dedicated PET/MRI system. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we systematically optimized the detector design with regard to the scintillation crystal, optical diffuser, surface treatment, layout of large-area APDs, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR, defined as the 511 keV photopeak position divided by the standard deviation of noise floor in an energy spectrum) of the APD devices. A detector prototype was built comprising an 8 × 8 array of 2.75 × 3.00 × 20.0 mm3 LYSO (lutetium-yttrium-oxyorthosilicate) crystals and a 22.0 × 24.0 × 9.0 mm3 optical diffuser. From the four designs of the optical diffuser tested, two designs employing a slotted diffuser are able to resolve all 64 crystals within the block with good uniformity and peak-to-valley ratio. Good agreement was found between the simulation and experimental results. For the detector employing a slotted optical diffuser, the energy resolution of the global energy spectrum after normalization is 13.4 ± 0.4%. The energy resolution of individual crystals varies between 11.3 ± 0.3% and 17.3 ± 0.4%. The time resolution varies between 4.85 ± 0.04 (center crystal), 5.17 ± 0.06 (edge crystal), and 5.18 ± 0.07 ns (corner crystal). The generalized framework proposed in this work helps to guide the design of detector modules for selected PET system configurations, including scaling the design down to a preclinical PET system, scaling up to a whole-body clinical scanner, as well as replacing APDs with other novel photodetectors that have higher gain or SNR such as silicon photomultipliers.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.580
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207