MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406449714 · doi:10.1186/s40658-024-00711-6

Improving timing resolution of BGO for TOF-PET: a comparative analysis with and without deep learning

2025· article· en· W4406449714 on OpenAlexafffund
Francis Loignon-Houle, N. Kratochwil, Maxime Toussaint, Carsten Lowis, Gerard Ariño‐Estrada, Antonio J. González, Etiennette Auffray, Roger Lecomte

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungQuébec Consortium for Drug Discovery
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningResolution (logic)Nuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The renewed interest in BGO scintillators for TOF-PET is driven by the improved Cherenkov photon detection with new blue-sensitive SiPMs. However, the slower scintillation light from BGO causes significant time walk with leading edge discrimination (LED), which degrades the coincidence time resolution (CTR). To address this, a time walk correction (TWC) can be done by using the rise time measured with a second threshold. Deep learning, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs), can also enhance CTR by training with digitized waveforms. It remains to be explored how timing estimation methods utilizing one (LED), two (TWC), or multiple (CNN) waveform data points compare in CTR performance of BGO scintillators. Results In this work, we compare classical experimental timing estimation methods (LED, TWC) with a CNN-based method using the signals from BGO crystals read out by NUV-HD-MT SiPMs and high-frequency electronics. For $${2 \times 2 \times 3}\,\hbox {mm}^{3}$$ 2 × 2 × 3 mm 3 crystals, implementing TWC results in a CTR of 129 ± 2 ps FWHM, while employing the CNN yields 115 ± 2 ps FWHM, marking improvements of 18 % and 26 %, respectively, relative to the standard LED estimator. For $${2 \times 2 \times 20}\,\hbox {mm}^{3}$$ 2 × 2 × 20 mm 3 crystals, both methods yield similar CTR (around 240 ps FWHM), offering a $$\sim$$ ∼ 15 % gain over LED. The CNN, however, exhibits better tail suppression in the coincidence time distribution. Conclusions The higher complexity of waveform digitization needed for CNNs could potentially be mitigated by adopting a simpler two-threshold approach, which appears to currently capture most of the essential information for improving CTR in longer BGO crystals. Other innovative deep learning models and training strategies may nonetheless contribute further in a near future to harnessing increasingly discernible timing features in TOF-PET detector signals.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207