MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157453764 · doi:10.1109/tns.2009.2038055

Real Time Coincidence Detection Engine for High Count Rate Timestamp Based PET

2010· article· en· W2157453764 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc‐André Tétrault, J. Oliver, M. Bergeron, Roger Lecomte, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsTimestampComputer scienceScannerCoincidenceReal-time computingComputer hardwareFlexibility (engineering)Data acquisitionVolume (thermodynamics)Embedded systemArtificial intelligenceOperating systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coincidence engines follow two main implementation flows: timestamp based systems and AND-gate based systems. The latter have been more widespread in recent years because of its lower cost and high efficiency. However, they are highly dependent on the selected electronic components, they have limited flexibility once assembled and they are customized to fit a specific scanner's geometry. Timestamp based systems are gathering more attention lately, especially with high channel count fully digital systems. These new systems must however cope with important singles count rates. One option is to record every detected event and postpone coincidence detection offline. For daily use systems, a real time engine is preferable because it dramatically reduces data volume and hence image preprocessing time and raw data management. This paper presents the timestamp based coincidence engine for the LabPET¿, a small animal PET scanner with up to 4608 individual readout avalanche photodiode channels. The engine can handle up to 100 million single events per second and has extensive flexibility because it resides in programmable logic devices. It can be adapted for any detector geometry or channel count, can be ported to newer, faster programmable devices and can have extra modules added to take advantage of scanner-specific features. Finally, the user can select between full processing mode for imaging protocols and minimum processing mode to study different approaches for coincidence detection with offline software.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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