MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Final Draft of PETSIRD v1.0: A Proposed Standard for PET Raw Data

2025· article· en· W4417472453 on OpenAlexaff
Kris Thielemans, Evren Asma, Michael J. Cook, Matthew E. Hansen, John W. Jones, Nicolas A. Karakatsanis, Adam Kesner, Christoph Lerche, E.K.S. Leung, Paweł Markiewicz, Joseph Naegele, Sven Prevrhal, Arman Rahmim, Hamid Sabet, Babak Saboury, Matthew G. Spangler‐Bickell, J. Stairs, Simon Stute, Hideaki Tashima, K. Ziemons, R. Glenn Wells

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationRaw dataSoftwareContainer (type theory)Positron emission tomographyInternational standard

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Standardization of unprocessed raw list-mode data for emission tomography (ET) is anticipated to enable the development and optimization of novel methods including machine learning. The Emission Tomography Standardization Initiative (ETSI) was founded in 2022 by an international consortium of academic and industry experts to define open, extendable, and vendor-agnostic ET data formats, currently focusing on the development of PETSIRD (“PET Emission Tomography Standardization Initiative's Raw Data“) open standard for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) list-mode raw data. The components of PETSIRD include (i) the description of data elements (coincidence events, geometry, correction factors, physiological signal etc.), (ii) a container of the data elements architecture and its access protocols built with the investigational prototype YARDL (Microsoft Research) meta-language, (iii) a simple higher-level software library to access the data elements and (iv) use-case software toolkit facilitating the basic utility of the standard.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.065

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→