MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173925012 · doi:10.1109/rtc.2007.4382813

Timing improvement by low-pass filtering and linear interpolation for the LabPET<sup>TM</sup> scanner

2007· article· en· W2173925012 on OpenAlexaff
Réjean Fontaine, François Lemieux, Nicolas Viscogliosi, Marc‐André Tétrault, M. Bergeron, Joël Riendeau, P. Bérard, J. Cadorette, Roger Lecomte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)ScannerTimestampLyso-AlgorithmEnergy (signal processing)Computer scienceImage resolutionFilter (signal processing)CoincidenceResolution (logic)PhysicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionReal-time computingOpticsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital processing for positron emission tomography (PET) scanners commonly relies on low frequency sampling (≪65 MHz) for reducing power consumption. Timestamps must then be interpolated between samples to achieve adequate time resolution for coincidence detection of annihilation radiation. A low-pass filter based interpolation algorithm adding up to 31 samples between original samples was designed to improve both the energy and timing resolution of the LabPET <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">TM</sup> scanner. An energy resolution refinement of ˜2 bits can be achieved with such a technique. The better estimation of triggering threshold leads to a more accurate timestamp generation. Timestamp accuracy was investigated as a function of trigger level (5-50% of maximum value). With the trigger threshold set at 20%, coincidence time resolution of ˜5.0 ns for LYSO-LYSO and ˜9.6 ns for LGSO-LGSO are obtained. A real time implementation of the algorithm was achieved in a Xilinx FPGA.

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 score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207