MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249513245 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1995.500322

A Monte Carlo study of the acceptance to scattered events in a depth encoding PET camera

2002· article· en· W4249513245 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Moisan, P. Tupper, J.G. Rogers, J.K. de Jong

Bibliographic record

Venue1995 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTRIUMF
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodPhysicsScannerOpticsBlock (permutation group theory)Coded apertureEnergy (signal processing)Aperture (computer memory)Image resolutionPosition (finance)Encoding (memory)Computer scienceDetectorArtificial intelligenceGeometryMathematicsStatisticsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors present a Monte Carlo study of the acceptance to scattered events in a Depth Encoding Large Aperture Camera (DELAC), a hypothetical PET scanner with the capacity to encode the depth-of-interaction (DOI) of incident /spl gamma/-rays. The simulation is initially validated against the measured scatter fraction of the ECAT-953B scanner. It is then used to assess the response to scattered events in a PET camera made of position encoding blocks of the EXACT HR PLUS type, modified to have DOI resolution through a variation in the photopeak pulse height. The detection efficiency for 511 keV /spl gamma/-rays, as well as for those that scattered in the object or left only part of their energy in the block, is studied for several combinations of DOI sensitivities and block thicknesses. The scatter fraction predicted by the simulation for DELACs of various ring radii is compared to that of the ECAT-953B as a function of the energy threshold. The results indicate that the poorer discrimination of object scatters with depth sensitive blocks does not lead to a dramatic increase of the scatter fraction.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue1995 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference RecordSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207