Restoration of detector scatter in quantitative rat-PET studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential of positron emission tomography (PET) to provide quantitative physiological parameters in vivo is of great importance in medicine as well as in pharmacology. However, the PET data need to be previously corrected for the physical image degrading effects. In this work, we demonstrate the effect of detector scatter restoration on image quality in small animal imaging as measured with individual detectors. The detector scatter is shown to affect the spatial resolution and the partial volume. Its effect on object scatter correction is also discussed. The spatial resolution was found to increase by about 2.5% after restoration of detector scatter as assessed in the projections of the sinograms. The gain in amplitude of a small size measured structure corresponding to this ratio should be considered to subsequently accurately correct for partial volume effect. Application of the detector scatter restoration prior to the assessment of tumor and myocardium glucose metabolism in the rat as well as perfusion in the rat heart was found to slightly increase these parameter values.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it