MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240166239 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1996.591619

A count rate model for PET and its application to an LSO HR PLUS scanner

2002· article· en· W4240166239 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoincidenceScannerDead timeDetectorPhysicsNoise (video)Imaging phantomData acquisitionOpticsComputer scienceNuclear medicineComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a count rate model for PET. Considering a standard 20/spl times/20 cm phantom in the field-of-view of a cylindrical septaless tomograph, the model computes the acceptance to prompt and random events from simple geometric considerations. Dead time factors at all stages of a typical event acquisition architecture are calculated from specified processing clock cycles. Validations of the model's predictions against the measured performances of the ECAT-953B and the EXACT HR PLUS are presented. The model is then used to investigate the benefit of using detectors made of LSO in the EXACT HR PLUS scanner geometry. The results indicate that in replacing BGO by the faster LSO, one can count on an increase of the peak noise-equivalent-count rate by a factor 2.2. This gain will be achieved by using a 5 nsec coincidence window, buckets operating on a 128 nsec clock cycle, and a front-end data acquisition that can sustain a total rate of 2.9 MHz.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.267 · 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