ArticleBiomedical physics & engineering express2017
Performance Comparison of Different Readouts for Position-Sensitive Solid-State Photomultiplier Arrays.
Article in Biomedical physics & engineering express, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- PET Detectors Based on Multi-Resolution SiPM Arrays.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A thorough comparison of five different readouts for reading out a 2 × 2 array of 5 mm × 5 mm position-sensitive solid-state photomultipliers (PS-SSPM) was undertaken. The five readouts include reading out the 20 signals (16 position and 4 timing) individually, two signal multiplexing readouts, and two position decoding readouts. Flood histogram quality, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and energy resolution were compared at different bias voltage (27.0 V to 32.0 V, at 0.5 V intervals) and at a fixed temperature of 0 °C by coupling a 6 × 6 array of 1.3 mm × 1.3 mm × 20 mm polished LSO crystals to the center of the PS-SSPM array. The timing resolution was measured at a bias voltage of 31.0 V (optimal bias voltage in terms of flood histogram quality). The best flood histogram quality value and signal-to-noise were 7.3 ± 1.6 and 33.5 ± 3.1, respectively, and were obtained by shaping and digitizing the 16 position signals individually. The capacitive charge-division readout is the simplest readout among the five evaluated but still resulted in good performance with a flood histogram quality value of 3.3 ± 0.4 and a SNR of 18.3 ± 1.3. The average energy resolution and the average timing resolution were 15.2 ± 1.2 % and 8.4 ± 1.6 ns for individual signal readout and 15.9 ± 1.2 % and 8.8 ± 1.3 ns by using the capacitive charge-division readout method. These studies show that for an ultra-high spatial resolution applications using the 2 × 2 PS-SSPM array, reading out the 20 signals individually is necessary; whilst the capacitive charge-division readout is a cost-effective readout for less demanding applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.