MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2542354950 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2009.5401776

Validation of GATE simulations of the <sup>176</sup>Lu intrinsic activity in LSO detectors

2009· article· en· W2542354950 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce McIntosh, Andrew L. Goertzen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorPhysicsCoincidenceMonte Carlo methodNuclear medicineOpticsMathematicsMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of the intrinsic activity of lutetium-based scintillators such as lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO) used in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging have been well documented and is generally not a concern in routine scanning. However, this intrinsic activity can become problematic when using a wide energy window or in low count rate scenarios such as cell trafficking studies in small animal imaging. To date, no systematic validation of Monte Carlo simulations of the intrinsic176Lu activity has been performed, making it difficult to incorporate them into the design and simulation of proposed scanners. This study seeks to validate Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission (GATE) simulations of the176Lu intrinsic activity in LSO based detectors against data gathered from a pair of LSO-based Siemens Inveon detectors. Measurements from two opposing detector modules were acquired using NIM electronics and a PC based data acquisition (DAQ) card. The detectors were characterized by determining the count rate due to intrinsic coincidence events vs. detector separation while stepping the lower level discriminator (LLD). Monte Carlo simulations were performed using GATE to reproduce the geometry of the bench-top measurements made with the two detectors, modeling the intrinsic activity of the176Lu as an ion source located within the scintillator crystals. Initial measurements show good agreement between the simulated and measured results. Intrinsic coincidence count rates are in good agreement at all distances, diverging when the LLD is stepped to a level near an intrinsic photopeak. The bench-top setup results require minor refinement to improve the accuracy of measurements at low energy levels which will be done before completing validation of the simulation results.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→