ArticleScientific reports2022
Autonomous digitizer calibration of a Monte Carlo detector model through evolutionary simulation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Simulating the response of a radiation detector is a modelling challenge due to the stochastic nature of radiation, often complex geometries, and multi-stage signal processing. While sophisticated tools for Monte Carlo simulation have been developed for radiation transport, emulating signal processing and data loss must be accomplished using a simplified model of the electronics called the digitizer. Due to a large number of free parameters, calibrating a digitizer quickly becomes an optimisation problem. To address this, we propose a novel technique by which evolutionary algorithms calibrate a digitizer autonomously. We demonstrate this by calibrating six free parameters in a digitizer model for the ADAC Forte. The accuracy of solutions is quantified via a cost function measuring the absolute percent difference between simulated and experimental coincidence count rates across a robust characterisation data set, including three detector configurations and a range of source activities. Ultimately, this calibration produces a count rate response with 5.8% mean difference to the experiment, improving from 18.3% difference when manually calibrated. Using evolutionary algorithms for model calibration is a notable advancement because this method is novel, autonomous, fault-tolerant, and achieved through a direct comparison of simulation to reality. The software used in this work has been made freely available through a GitHub repository.
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.