MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765193803 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2016.8069495

Preliminary results of an embedded timing probe for calibrating PET scanner

2016· article· en· W2765193803 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Samson, Jonathan Bouchard, Émilie Gaudin, Christian Thibaudeau, Louis Arpin, Caroline Paulin, Roger Lecomte, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerFirmwareDifferential nonlinearityCoincidenceIntegral nonlinearityPhysicsAvalanche photodiodeDead timeField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceOpticsComputer hardwareDetectorCMOSVoltageOptoelectronicsConverters

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the aim of improving the CNR of the LabPET II scanner, a method to correct the channel-to-channel coincidence time difference has been developed. The LabPET II, an avalanche photodiode-based PET scanner, features up to 55 000 channels which benefit from precise timing alignment. The correction process is fully automated and embedded in the scanner hardware and firmware. It uses a timing probe designed to react with the excess kinetic energy of a positron, enabling an absolute time reference of the positrons emission inside the probe. The time measurement is performed by a 312.5 ps time-to-digital converter (TDC) implemented in the LabPET II coincidence unit FPGA featuring a differential nonlinearity of -0.23 LSB peak and an integral nonlinearity of 0.14 LSB peak. The system computes probe-to-channel coincidences in order to obtain the absolute time difference between each channel of the scanner. The time correction is then applied to each channel to align all coincidence spectra, enhancing time resolution, thus improving CNR. Finally, these corrections are applied in real-time to each event during a typical PET acquisition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207