MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2973441511 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab452f

Count rate performance of brain-dedicated PET scanners: a Monte Carlo simulation study

2019· article· en· W2973441511 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammadreza Teimoorisichani, Andrew L. Goertzen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDetectorScannerMonte Carlo methodPhysicsScintillatorOpticsSensitivity (control systems)Nuclear medicineElectronic engineeringMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in brain-dedicated PET imaging systems, particularly in the context of combined PET/MR imaging. We are currently designing a brain-dedicated PET insert suitable for an ultra-high field brain-dedicated MR scanner, the Siemens Magnetom 7T MR scanner. In this paper, an investigation on the count rate performance of several possible detectors through a series of Monte Carlo simulations is reported. Brain-dedicated PET scanners with a lutetium oxyorthosilicate scintillator and a detector area of 0.04 (1 crystal per detector) to 101.37 (2500 crystals per detector) cm 2 , detector thickness of 10 to 20 mm and a fixed crystal pitch of ~2 mm were simulated. The count rate performance of each scanner was evaluated as a function of detector deadtime type and constant, coincidence timing window and lower level discriminator. Also, the effects of activity outside the field-of-view (FOV) on the count rate performance of each scanner were studied. For each detector geometry and performance metric, the scanner singles rate, scanner sensitivity and noise equivalent count rate as a function of activity in the FOV were measured. It was seen that scanners with detectors comprised a few crystal elements showed reduced scanner sensitivity due to a high number of inter-detector scattering. The count rate performance of scanners with large detectors, on the other hand, was mainly determined by the deadtime properties of the detectors. A model for the count rate performance of the scanner with each studied detector is presented in this work.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.428
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 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→