MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230831995 · doi:10.1109/rtc.2014.7097468

Automatic channel fault detection and diagnosis system for a small animal APD-based digital PET scanner

2014· article· en· W4230831995 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan Charest, Jean-François Beaudoin, J. Cadorette, Roger Lecomte, Charles-Antoine Brunet, Réjean Fontaine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScannerComputer scienceFault detection and isolationChannel (broadcasting)Fault (geology)CalibrationFault coverageReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsActuator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fault detection and diagnosis is critical to many applications in order to ensure proper operation and performance over time. This applies to positron emission tomography (PET) scanners which are complex systems that require regular calibrations by qualified scanner operators to ensure optimal performance. Furthermore, for scanners employing one-to-one coupling of crystals to photodetectors to achieve enhanced spatial resolution and contrast, the calibration task is even more daunting because of the large number of independent channels involved. To cope with the additional complexity of the calibration and quality control procedures of these scanners, an intelligent system (IS) was designed to perform fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) of malfunctioning channels. The IS can be broken down into four hierarchical modules: parameter extraction, channel fault detection, fault prioritization and diagnosis. Of these modules, the first two have previously been reported and this paper focuses on fault prioritization and diagnosis. The purpose of the fault prioritization module is to help the operator to zero in on the faults that need immediate attention. The fault diagnosis module will then diagnose the causes of the malfunction and propose an explanation of the reasons that lead to the diagnosis. The FDD system was implemented on a 8 cm axial length LabPET™ scanner located at the Sherbrooke Molecular Imaging Center and experiments demonstrated a FDD efficiency of 99.3% (with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [98.7, 99.9]) for major faults. Globally, the balanced accuracy of the diagnosis for varying fault severities is 92 %. This suggests the IS can greatly benefit the operators in their maintenance task.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207