MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754064880 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.187666

Performance of a PET Insert for High-Resolution Small-Animal PET/MRI at 7 Tesla

2017· article· en· W2754064880 on OpenAlexafffund
Greg Stortz, Jonathan D. Thiessen, D. Bishop, Muhammad Salman Khan, Piotr Kozłowski, F. Retière, Graham Schellenberg, Ehsan Shams, Xuezhu Zhang, Christopher J. Thompson, Andrew L. Goertzen, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalTRIUMFUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsInsert (composites)Nuclear medicinePositron emission tomographyNuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterize a compact MR-compatible PET insert for simultaneous preclinical PET/MRI. Although specifically designed with the strict size constraint to fit inside the 114-mm inner diameter of the BGA-12S gradient coil used in the BioSpec 70/20 and 94/20 series of small-animal MRI systems, the insert can easily be installed in any appropriate MRI scanner or used as a stand-alone PET system. <b>Methods:</b> The insert consists of a ring of 16 detector-blocks each made from depth-of-interaction–capable dual-layer-offset arrays of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate crystals read out by silicon photomultiplier arrays. Scintillator crystal arrays are made from 22 × 10 and 21 × 9 crystals in the bottom and top layers, respectively, with respective layer thicknesses of 6 and 4 mm, arranged with a 1.27-mm pitch, resulting in a useable field of view 28 mm long and about 55 mm wide. <b>Results:</b> Spatial resolution ranged from 1.17 to 1.86 mm full width at half maximum in the radial direction from a radial offset of 0–15 mm. With a 300- to 800-keV energy window, peak sensitivity was 2.2% and noise-equivalent count rate from a mouse-sized phantom at 3.7 MBq was 11.1 kcps and peaked at 20.8 kcps at 14.5 MBq. Phantom imaging showed that features as small as 0.7 mm could be resolved. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/MR images of mouse and rat brains showed no signs of intermodality interference and could excellently resolve substructures within the brain. <b>Conclusion:</b> Because of excellent spatial resolvability and lack of intermodality interference, this PET insert will serve as a useful tool for preclinical PET/MR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations62
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207