MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173052946 · doi:10.1109/23.958390

NEMA NU 2-2000+ performance measurements on an ADAC MCD camera

2001· article· en· W2173052946 on OpenAlexaff
Vesna Sossi, B. W. Pointon, Caroline Boudoux, Philip Cohen, K. Hudkins, Salma Jivan, K. Nitzek, J. deRosario, Charles F. Stevens, T.J. Ruth

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMFLions Gate HospitalUniversité LavalBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRADIUSNuclear medicineTransverse planeOpticsFull width at half maximumAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinically oriented NEMA NU-2 2000+ performance standards have been performed on an ADAC molecular coincidence detection dual-head camera. At 1 cm radius, the transverse resolution full-width at half-maximum was measured to be 5.2 (10.0) mm and the axial was 5.0 (10.6) mm. At 10 cm radius, the transverse radial resolution was 4.7 (7.4) mm and the transverse tangential was 8.5 (20.9) mm. The axial resolution was 14.0 (41.1) mm. The peak true count rate was 4370 counts/s at a concentration of 4.3 kBq/ml. The peak noise equivalent count rate (NECR) was 1620 counts/s at 2.9 kBq/ml. The system scatter fraction was 48%, The maximum relative count rate error observed at the NECR peak was -42%. The sensitivity was 1010 counts/sm/rSq in the center and 870 counts/s/MBq at an offset of 10 cm. The contrast for the hot spheres ranged from 18.5 (11.6)% to 11.6 (7.9)% for a contrast ratio of 8:1 (4:1). For the cold spheres, it ranged from 41% to 25% with an overall background variability of 7%. The residual error in scatter and attenuation correction was approximately 50%. All measurements were performed at the maximum allowed crystal-to-crystal distance of 810 mm.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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