MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256741161 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2003.1352211

Time determination of BGO-APD detectors by digital signal processing for positron emission tomography

2003· article· en· W4256741161 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Daniel Leroux, J.P. Martin, D. Rouleau, C. Pépin, J. Cadorette, Réjean Fontaine, Roger Lecomte

Bibliographic record

Venue2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDetectorAvalanche photodiodePhysicsDiscriminatorSIGNAL (programming language)OpticsElectronic engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coincidence timing resolution in positron emission tomography (PET) can be improved by replacing fast analog pulse shaping and constant fraction discriminator (CFD) with fully digital signal processing. This can be achieved by digitizing the signal from individual detectors using 100-MHz 8-bit analog-to-digital converters (ADC) and processing the data in field programmable gate arrays (FPGA). Various digital implementation of filters and baseline restorers have been combined with numerical least mean square fit to the data to extract the time of interaction and the energy deposited in BGOAPD detectors. Using the same detector and pre-amplifier, a time resolution of 7.2 ns was obtained with digital techniques, as compare to 12.7 ns with the conventional analog method. By reducing the BGO-BGO coincidence time window by more than /spl sim/40 %, an equivalent reduction of the rate of random events can be obtained, which would improve image SNR significantly at high counting rate in a BGO-APD PET scanner. The proposed digital techniques can be readily adapted to other faster detectors.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515)Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207