Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39123992›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

To Reconstruct or Discard: A Comparison of Additive and Subtractive Charge Sharing Correction Algorithms at High and Low X-ray Fluxes.

Oliver L P Pickford Scienti, Dimitra G Darambara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Oliver L P Pickford ScientiJoint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London SM2 5NG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5745-8309
Dimitra G DarambaraJoint Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London SM2 5NG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4960-8207

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1060/A16464Cancer Research UK C209/A20926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective X-ray photon-counting spectral imaging (x-CSI) detector design involves the optimisation of a wide range of parameters both regarding the sensor (e.g., material, thickness and pixel pitch) and electronics (e.g., signal-processing chain and count-triggering scheme). Our previous publications have looked at the role of pixel pitch, sensor thickness and a range of additive charge sharing correction algorithms (CSCAs), and in this work, we compare additive and subtractive CSCAs to identify the advantages and disadvantages. These CSCAs differ in their approach to dealing with charge sharing: additive approaches attempt to reconstruct the original event, whilst subtractive approaches discard the shared events. Each approach was simulated on data from a wide range of x-CSI detector designs (pixel pitches 100-600 µm, sensor thickness 1.5 mm) and X-ray fluxes (10

Indexed as

additive CSCACdTecharge sharing correctionenergy resolvingoptimisationphoton countingspectral imagingsubtractive CSCAx-CSI

Identifiers

PMID39123992
PMCPMC11314781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.