MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983790479 · doi:10.3390/s19225019

Sensors for Positron Emission Tomography Applications

2019· review· en· W2983790479 on OpenAlexafffund
Wei Jiang, Yamn Chalich, M. Jamal Deen

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsSilicon photomultiplierAvalanche photodiodePhotomultiplierDetectorPositron emission tomographyAPDSComputer sciencePhotodetectorMedical physicsOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceScintillatorElectronic engineeringPhysicsEngineeringNuclear medicineTelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is an essential tool in clinical applications for the diagnosis of diseases due to its ability to acquire functional images to help differentiate between metabolic and biological activities at the molecular level. One key limiting factor in the development of efficient and accurate PET systems is the sensor technology in the PET detector. There are generally four types of sensor technologies employed: photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), avalanche photodiodes (APDs), silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs), and cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) detectors. PMTs were widely used for PET applications in the early days due to their excellent performance metrics of high gain, low noise, and fast timing. However, the fragility and bulkiness of the PMT glass tubes, high operating voltage, and sensitivity to magnetic fields ultimately limit this technology for future cost-effective and multi-modal systems. As a result, solid-state photodetectors like the APD, SiPM, and CZT detectors, and their applications for PET systems, have attracted lots of research interest, especially owing to the continual advancements in the semiconductor fabrication process. In this review, we study and discuss the operating principles, key performance parameters, and PET applications for each type of sensor technology with an emphasis on SiPM and CZT detectors-the two most promising types of sensors for future PET systems. We also present the sensor technologies used in commercially available state-of-the-art PET systems. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of these four types of sensors are compared and the research challenges of SiPM and CZT detectors are discussed and summarized.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.034

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations87
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207