ArticleBiomedical engineering letters2025
Energy estimation methods for positron emission tomography detectors composed of multiple scintillators.
Article in Biomedical engineering letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The performance and image quality of positron emission tomography (PET) systems can be enhanced by strategically employing multiple different scintillators, particularly those with different decay times. Two cutting-edge PET detector technologies employing different scintillators with different decay times are the phoswich detector and the emerging metascintillator. In PET imaging, accurate and precise energy measurement is important for effectively rejecting scattered gamma-rays and estimating scatter distribution. However, traditional measures of light output, such as amplitude or integration values of photosensor output pulses, cannot accurately indicate the deposit energy of gamma-rays across multiple scintillators. To address these issues, this study explores two methods for energy estimation in PET detectors that employ multiple scintillators. The first method uses pseudo-inverse matrix generated from the unique pulse profile of each crystal, while the second employs an artificial neural network (ANN) to estimate the energy deposited in each crystal. The effectiveness of the proposed methods was experimentally evaluated using three heavy and dense inorganic scintillation crystals (BGO, LGSO, and GAGG) and three fast plastic scintillators (EJ200, EJ224, and EJ232). The energy estimation method employing ANNs consistently demonstrated superior accuracy across all crystal combinations when compared to the approach utilizing the pseudo-inverse matrix. In the pseudo-inverse matrix approach, there is a negligible difference in accuracy when applying integral-based energy labels as opposed to amplitude-based energy labels. On the other hand, in ANN approach, employing integral-based energy labels consistently outperforms the use of amplitude-based energy labels. This study contributes to the advancement of PET detector technology by proposing and evaluating two methods for estimating the energy in the detector using multiple scintillators. The ANN approach appears to be a promising solution for improving the accuracy of energy estimation, addressing challenges posed by mixed scintillation pulses.
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.