MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149826956 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2005.1596922

Crystal Identification Based on Recursive-Least-Squares and Least-Mean-Squares AutoRegressive Models for Small-Animal PET

2006· article· en· W3149826956 on OpenAlexaff
Hicham Semmaoui, Nicolas Viscogliosi, François Bélanger, J.-B. Michaud, C. Pépin, Roger Lecomte, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorAutoregressive modelLyso-Computer scienceAlgorithmFilter (signal processing)Identification (biology)Artificial intelligenceMATLABParallaxComputer visionMathematicsScintillatorStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most positron emission tomography (PET) scanners still partly rely on analog processing to sort out events from the PET detector front-end. Recent all-digital architectures enable the use of more complex algorithms to solve common problems in PET scanners, such as crystal identification and parallax error. Auto-regressive moving-average (ARMAX) algorithms are among the most powerful methods for parallax mitigation in phoswich detectors. Although ARMAX achieves excellent discrimination accuracy even with noisy data, such methods are computationally expensive and can hardly be implemented in a real-time digital PET system. A crystal identification method based on adaptive filter theory using an auto-regressive (AR) model is proposed to enable real-time crystal identification in a noisy environment. Preliminary results based on MatLab simulation demonstrate a high discrimination accuracy (~95%) for phoswich LSO-LYSO crystals (with 40 and 51 ns decay time constants) and nearly 99% for BGO-LSO, including Compton photons

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207