Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Imaging simulation of a dual-panel PET geometry with ultrafast TOF detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A dual-panel PET built from two flat BGO panels matches a 300-mm ring scanner's spatial resolution at 40 ps time-of-flight, and at 30 ps it keeps image noise low even when only 20% of coincidence events are retained.

desk verdict A transparent dual-panel TOF-PET simulation that gives concrete thresholds; treat them as conditional until detector-level timing is tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01006 v3 pith:54HKRJR7 submitted 2025-02-03 physics.med-ph physics.ins-det

Taiyo Ishikawa , Go Akamatsu , Hideaki Tashima , Fumihiko Nishikido , Fumio Hashimoto , Ryosuke Ota , Hideaki Haneishi , Sun Il Kwon
show 2 more authors
Simon R. Cherry Taiga Yamaya
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.ins-det
keywords positronemissiontomographytime-of-flightPETdual-panelCherenkovradiationMCP-PMTBGOscintillatorimagereconstructionMonteCarlosimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using Monte Carlo simulation, this paper asks whether a positron emission tomography scanner built from two flat detector panels instead of a ring can match conventional imaging performance if the detectors time photon arrivals with extreme precision. The answer it argues is yes: with 40 ps time-of-flight (TOF) resolution, the dual-panel geometry reaches the spatial resolution of a non-TOF ring PET of the same scale and efficiency, and at 30 ps it beats it. Because Cherenkov-based timing in BGO detectors collects very few photons, the authors also model reduced detection efficiency by randomly discarding coincidence events; at 30 ps, retaining only 20% of events gives image noise equivalent to a 40 ps system with full efficiency. They further show that iterative MLEM reconstruction outperforms simple backprojection even at 30 ps, and that TOF improves contrast in a NEMA-style phantom with 40% relative efficiency. The practical stake is that open, flat detector geometries, useful for surgery guidance and beam monitoring, could become clinically viable if roughly 30 to 40 ps detectors can be built.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is time-of-flight localization along each line of response, folded into list-mode MLEM through a TOF kernel that spreads each event around the most likely source position. The simulation assumes Cherenkov photons supply the timing signal while scintillation light supplies position and energy, and it models TOF resolution as a Gaussian smearing of the arrival-time difference; section II.B also introduces the relative detection efficiency (RDE), a single parameter that randomly thins coincidence data to represent the fraction of events triggered by detected Cherenkov photons. RDE is what lets the study trade timing precision against light-collection loss and identify the boundary where TOF gain cancels efficiency loss.

What would settle it

Build a BGO-window multi-anode MCP-PMT panel and measure its coincidence time distribution and Cherenkov-triggered event fraction under realistic optical conditions: if the timing histogram has non-Gaussian tails wider than the simulated Gaussian smearing, or if fewer than roughly one in five coincidences is Cherenkov-triggered at the operating threshold, the simulated 40 ps and 20%-efficiency breakpoints would not transfer to hardware. A simulation with full optical photon transport, which the paper explicitly leaves out, would be a direct numerical check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ultrafast TOF measurement substitutes for the angular coverage that a ring geometry provides. In simulated acquisitions of two 137 by 137 mm panels of 5 mm BGO pixels separated by 300 mm, 40 ps TOF resolution produced peak-to-valley contrast of 97.6% on 4 mm rods, statistically comparable to the 92.3% of a 300 mm-diameter non-TOF ring PET, while 30 ps reached 99.4%. Because BGO Cherenkov radiation yields only a few photons and the fraction of events in which both detectors trigger on Cherenkov light is partial, the authors thinned list-mode data to define a relative detection efficiency; with 30 ps TOF and 20% efficiency the image noise was 6.9%, essentially equal to the 6.8% noise of a 40 ps system with full efficiency. The authors conclude the dual-panel geometry is feasible and that the benefit of TOF outweighs the loss of efficiency down to roughly 20% retained events.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real detector timing can be represented as a single Gaussian blur and that lost detection efficiency acts purely as random deletion of coincidence events; if actual BGO-based detectors show timing tails, misidentified events, or efficiency losses that are correlated with timing or position, the 40 ps requirement and the 20% noise-equivalence threshold would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 40 ps dual-panel scanner matches the spatial resolution of a 300 mm non-TOF ring PET with identical detector efficiency, so ultrafast TOF removes the need for full angular sampling.
  • At 30 ps TOF, image noise with only 20% of coincidence events retained equals the noise of a 40 ps system with full efficiency, meaning TOF can absorb large Cherenkov detection losses.
  • MLEM reconstruction remains worthwhile at 30 ps: it gives higher rod contrast than backprojection at the same noise level using only a few iterations.
  • In a NEMA-style image-quality phantom with 40% relative efficiency, faster TOF improves contrast at fixed background variability and cuts vertical artifacts.
  • Better than 50 ps TOF resolves 3 mm rods in the panel geometry, the same rod resolution as the non-TOF ring reference.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 20%-efficiency result carries to hardware, Cherenkov photon collection in BGO need not be near-total for a panel scanner to be useful; a system retaining one in five coincidences could still yield acceptable noise.
  • The paper compares against a 300 mm ring, but clinical whole-body rings are much larger; scaling that comparison suggests the panel design could match even a roughly 700 to 800 mm ring with relaxed TOF requirements, a direction the discussion only touches on.
  • A direct test of the single-Gaussian timing assumption, by replacing it with the multi-Gaussian tails measured for BGO Cherenkov and scintillation events and adding optical photon transport, would firm up whether 40 ps is the true threshold.
  • Misidentification of scintillation-triggered events as Cherenkov-triggered ones is assumed to be perfectly rejected; imperfect event classification would degrade both timing and efficiency and likely require a TOF resolution even better than 30 ps.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Geant4 simulation study of a dual-panel PET geometry with ultrafast time-of-flight (TOF) detectors based on BGO crystals coupled to microchannel-plate PMTs. The authors simulate imaging performance for TOF resolutions from 30 to 90 ps and relative detection efficiencies (RDE) from 10% to 100%, using MLEM and backprojection, and compare against a non-TOF ring PET reference. The main claims are that a 40 ps TOF resolution is sufficient for the dual-panel PET to match the spatial resolution of the 300-mm-diameter ring PET at the same detection efficiency, that the image noise at 30 ps TOF with 20% RDE is similar to that at 40 ps TOF with complete efficiency, and that MLEM outperforms backprojection. The authors conclude that the proposed dual-panel PET is feasible.

Significance. If the central quantitative thresholds are robust, this work is significant for the design of open-geometry PET systems in applications such as PET-guided surgery and in-beam particle therapy monitoring. The simulation methodology is clearly described and internally consistent, and the authors disclose major simplifications up front: no optical transport, a Gaussian timing model, uniform random thinning for efficiency, and a reconstruction kernel matched to the simulated timing blur. The key numbers (40 ps, 20% RDE) are outputs of a well-defined forward simulation rather than fitted parameters. However, the paper's feasibility conclusion is conditional on idealized timing and efficiency models that are favorable to the dual-panel concept, so the claims are not yet established against realistic detector behavior.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B] The TOF error is modeled as a single Gaussian smearing of the arrival-time difference, and Section IV acknowledges that real BGO timing histograms show long tails due to variable Cherenkov photon statistics and scintillation contamination. Because the 40 ps spatial-resolution threshold and the 20% RDE noise-equivalence threshold are outputs of this Gaussian model, the central feasibility claim is not robust to realistic timing distributions. Please add a sensitivity study using a measured or literature-based timing spectrum (e.g., the multi-Gaussian or tailed model of Ref. [44]) and report how the %P2V and %SD curves shift.
  2. [Section II.B (RDE modeling)] The relative detection efficiency is implemented by uniformly random thinning of list-mode events. In a real detector, detection efficiency and timing quality are coupled: events with few detected Cherenkov photons are both more likely to be lost and to have worse, tail-heavy timing. Random thinning breaks this correlation in a way that is favorable to the dual-panel concept. The claim that 20% RDE at 30 ps TOF matches 100% RDE at 40 ps TOF should be tested with a model in which timing uncertainty worsens as the number of detected photons decreases, so that the efficiency-timing coupling is represented.
  3. [Section II.D, Eq. (2)] The reconstruction uses a TOF kernel whose Gaussian FWHM and bin size exactly match the simulated timing blur, and the detector response kernel is also matched. This kernel matching is a form of circularity that gives an upper bound on achievable image quality; any real system would have model mismatch from timing tails and misidentified events. The authors should state this explicitly and, ideally, quantify the degradation by running at least one reconstruction with a mismatched TOF kernel (e.g., a wider Gaussian or a tailed kernel) to show the sensitivity of the reported thresholds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states that the %SD at 30 ps TOF with 20% RDE (6.9%) was 'better than' the %SD at 40 ps with complete efficiency (6.8%); numerically, 6.9% is slightly worse, so the wording should be 'comparable to' as used in the abstract.
  2. [Section V (Conclusion)] The sentence 'In the case of half the efficiency, we showed that the TOF resolution should be 30 ps...' is inconsistent with the reported result, which compares 20% RDE with 100% RDE; 'half the efficiency' should be corrected to 'one-fifth the efficiency' or rephrased to match the actual RDE values.
  3. [Section II.B] The sentence describing the timing calculation is repetitive: 'the interaction time at the detection position' and 'the interaction position with the maximum energy deposition' refer to the same quantity; clarify that the detection position is the crystal with maximum energy deposition and that the photon travel time to the crystal bottom is added to that interaction time.
  4. [Section II.E.1] The iteration-selection criteria for the spatial resolution and noise studies could be stated more explicitly; in particular, 'the %P2V was fixed at a value when %SD was 10% in the non-TOF ring PET' should make clear that the reference is the ring PET, not the dual-panel PET.
  5. [Section III.A] The claim that rods of a given diameter were 'resolved' is based on visual inspection of Fig. 5; consider providing a quantitative rod-visibility metric (e.g., contrast or peak-to-valley for each rod size) to support the resolution claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 40 ps and 20% RDE thresholds are simulation outputs, not parameters fitted to reproduce the claims.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims—40 ps TOF required to match a 300-mm non-TOF ring PET in spatial resolution, and comparable noise at 30 ps/20% RDE vs 40 ps/100% RDE—are read off from Geant4 simulations in which TOF resolution (30–90 ps) and RDE (10–100%) are swept input parameters. The reconstruction uses a TOF kernel matched to the same FWHM as the simulated timing resolution, but this is standard forward-consistent modeling, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The paper cites prior work by overlapping authors ([5], [7], [28], [37], [39]) for parameter choices and background facts, but the arguments do not reduce to those citations: [5] supplies the 30 ps benchmark, [7] motivates the geometry, [28] supplies a plausible 40% RDE, and [37]/[39] are reconstruction software/method references. The unvalidated assumptions identified in the Discussion—single-Gaussian TOF smearing, perfect Cherenkov/scintillation event identification, and random thinning as a model of reduced efficiency—are stated modeling simplifications and correctness risks, not circular reductions, because the thresholds are not defined in terms of those assumptions nor fitted to produce the findings.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on simplified detector physics: timing treated as a Gaussian knob on arrival-time difference, no optical photon transport, uniform random thinning for efficiency, and a reconstruction kernel matched to the simulated TOF blur. These are modeling choices, not fitted hidden parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • TOF resolution FWHM = 30-90 ps (swept)
    Input parameter varied in 30, 40, 50, 60, 90 ps steps; based on demonstrated 30 ps capability [5], but not a fitted constant. The 40 ps requirement is read off this sweep.
  • Relative detection efficiency (RDE) = 10-100% in 10% steps
    Simulated by random thinning of list-mode data; parameterizes Cherenkov-Cherenkov trigger probability. The 20% noise-equivalence result depends on this thinning model.
  • Detector response FWHM in reconstruction = 2.5 mm
    Gaussian blur for the distance between each LOR and voxel center in the projector and backprojector. No sensitivity analysis is given, and it affects spatial resolution metrics.
  • TOF bin size D in Eq. (2) = 1.2 mm
    Reconstruction parameter for the rectangular TOF bin in the response model. Not physically motivated, but the small bin is unlikely to bias conclusions.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Geant4 accurately models annihilation photon transport in BGO crystals.
    All physical interactions and energy depositions come from Geant4; no experimental validation of the simulated stopping power or depth-of-interaction is provided.
  • domain assumption Positron range and photon non-collinearity are negligible.
    Stated in Section II.B. Reasonable for the small phantom and 300 mm panel distance, but would not hold for whole-body imaging with larger source-to-detector distances.
  • ad hoc to paper Detection timing is the interaction time at the max-energy crystal plus straight-line photon travel to the crystal bottom.
    Section II.B. This substitutes for full Cherenkov photon emission and propagation physics, which in reality produce timing tails and photon-count statistics.
  • domain assumption Single events are perfectly identified as Cherenkov-triggered or scintillation-triggered.
    Section II.B states coincidence events are triggered by Cherenkov photons; the authors note identification failures are future work. Misidentification would degrade both timing and efficiency.
  • ad hoc to paper Random thinning of list-mode data accurately represents reduced detection efficiency.
    Section II.B. Uniform Poisson deletion ignores correlations between efficiency loss and timing, position, or energy, which could change the noise tradeoff.
  • ad hoc to paper The reconstruction TOF kernel matches the simulated Gaussian timing blur.
    Section II.D, Eq. (2). Using the known FWHM in the model is an inverse-crime scenario that can overstate MLEM gains relative to a system with an unknown or misspecified kernel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaging simulation of a dual-panel PET geometry with ultrafast TOF detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54HKRJR7

@misc{pith2026250201006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaging simulation of a dual-panel PET geometry with ultrafast TOF detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54HKRJR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01006}
}
abstract

In positron emission tomography (PET), time-of-flight (TOF) information localizes source positions along lines of response. Cherenkov-radiator-integrated microchannel-plate photomultiplier tubes have achieved 30 ps TOF resolution, demonstrating cross-sectional imaging without reconstruction. Such ultrafast TOF detectors would free PET from conventional ring geometries. Therefore, this study aimed at investigating imaging characteristics of a dual-panel PET with ultrafast TOF detectors using Geant4 simulation. Two detector panels ($137 \times 137~\text{mm}^2$), which consisted of 5.0 mm-thick bismuth germanate pixelized crystals with a 5.75 mm pitch, were placed face-to-face at a 300 mm distance. Imaging characteristics with various TOF resolutions from 30 to 90 ps were evaluated. Because degraded efficiency may cancel TOF gain in image quality, detection efficiency was also parameterized by reducing coincidence counts. Data acquisitions for a numerical multi-rod and uniform phantom (21 MBq) and a modified NEMA NU2 image quality phantom were simulated for 600 s. Results of the maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) reconstruction were compared with those of a backprojection (i.e., no reconstruction). The dual-panel PET required a 40 ps TOF resolution to have a similar spatial resolution to that of a non-TOF ring PET (300 mm in diameter) for the same detection efficiency. TOF showed benefit in the reconstruction of image quality phantom with 40% efficiency, and the image noise with 20% efficiency at 30 ps TOF was similar to the complete efficiency at 40 ps TOF. MLEM provided better imaging performance than backprojection, even at 30 ps TOF. The feasibility of the proposed dual-panel PET was shown.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01006 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of an image quality phantom. Circular ROIs with a 10 mm diameter were set in the 10 mm hot sphere and the background area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. The %contrast and %BV curves in the MLEM iterations with five TOF resolutions. Markers are plotted for each iteration (left to right). The %contrast was improved according to the TOF resolution at a fixed %BV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. MLEM images of the image quality phantom with various TOF resolutions from 30 ps to 90 ps in 40% RDE. Three or four iterations were required to have the %BV closest to 6%. As the TOF resolution improved, the artifacts of the hot spheres in the vertical direction were reduced, and the %contrast was improved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Pushing Cherenkov PET with BGO via coincidence time resolution classification and correction,

    N. Kratochwil, S. Gundacker, P. Lecoq, and E. Auffray, “Pushing Cherenkov PET with BGO via coincidence time resolution classification and correction,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 11, p. 115004, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab87f9

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab87f9 2020

  2. [1]

    Image reconstruction and noise evaluation in photon time -of-flight assisted positron emission tomography,

    T. Tomitani, “Image reconstruction and noise evaluation in photon time -of-flight assisted positron emission tomography,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 4581–4589, Feb. 1981, doi: 10.1109/TNS.1981.4335769

    work page arXiv 1981

  3. [2]

    A mathematical model for positron -emission tomography systems having time -of-flight measurements,

    D. L. Snyder, L. J. Thomas, and M. M. Ter -Pogossian, “A mathematical model for positron -emission tomography systems having time -of-flight measurements,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3575 –3583, Jun. 1981, doi: 10.1109/TNS.1981.4332168

    work page arXiv 1981

  4. [3]

    Recent developments in time -of-flight PET,

    S. Vandenberghe, E. Mikhaylova, E. D’Hoe, P. Mollet, and J. S. Karp, “Recent developments in time -of-flight PET,” EJNMMI Phys. , vol. 3, no. 1, p. 3, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3

    work page doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0138-3 2016

  5. [4]

    Performance characteristics of the digital Biograph Vision PET/CT system,

    J. van Sluis et al. , “Performance characteristics of the digital Biograph Vision PET/CT system,” J. Nucl. Med., vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1031 –1036, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.215418

    work page doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.215418 2019

  6. [5]

    Coincidence time resolution of 30 ps FWHM using a pair of Cherenkov -radiator-integrated MCP-PMTs,

    R. Ota et al. , “Coincidence time resolution of 30 ps FWHM using a pair of Cherenkov -radiator-integrated MCP-PMTs,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 64, no. 7, p. 07LT01, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab0fce

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab0fce 2019

  7. [6]

    Chicheportiche, R

    A. Chicheportiche, R. Marciano, and M. Orevi, “Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI -DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT Fig. 12. MLEM images of the image quality phantom with various TOF resolutions from 30 ps to 90 ps in 40% RDE. Three or four iterations were required to have the %B...

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Ultrafast timing enables reconstruction-free positron emission imaging,

    S. I. Kwon et al. , “Ultrafast timing enables reconstruction-free positron emission imaging,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 914 –918, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41566-021-00871-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41566-021-00871-2 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Design optimization of a time -of-flight, breast PET scanner,

    E. Lee, M. E. Werner, J. S. Karp, and S. Surti, “Design optimization of a time -of-flight, breast PET scanner,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1645 –1652, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2013.2257849

    2013

  2. [9]

    Design considerations for a limited angle, dedicated breast, TOF PET scanner,

    S. Surti and J. S. Karp, “Design considerations for a limited angle, dedicated breast, TOF PET scanner,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 53, no. 11, p. 2911, May 2008, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/11/010

    2008 doi

  3. [10]

    Conceptual design of a dual - panel dedicated prostate PET scanner: a Monte Carlo simulation study,

    A. S. Manesh, M. Amini, H. Arabi, K. Doroud, C. Williams, and H. Zaidi, “Conceptual design of a dual - panel dedicated prostate PET scanner: a Monte Carlo simulation study,” in 2022 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Jan. 2022, pp. 1 –3. d...

    2022

  4. [11]

    Study of the performance of a novel resolution dual -panel PET camera design dedicated to breast cancer imaging using Monte Carlo simulation,

    J. Zhang, P. D. Olcott, G. Chinn, A. M. K. Foudray, and C. S. Levin, “Study of the performance of a novel resolution dual -panel PET camera design dedicated to breast cancer imaging using Monte Carlo simulation,” Med. Phys. , vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 689 –702, 2007, doi: 10.1118/1.2409480

    2007 doi

  5. [12]

    On the detector arrangement for in -beam PET for hadron therapy monitoring,

    P. Crespo, G. Shakirin, and W. Enghardt, “On the detector arrangement for in -beam PET for hadron therapy monitoring,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 51, no. 9, p. 2143, Apr. 2006, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/9/002

    2006 doi

  6. [13]

    Design and proof of concept of a double -panel TOF-PET system,

    A. Gonzalez -Montoro et al. , “Design and proof of concept of a double -panel TOF-PET system,” EJNMMI Phys., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 73, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s40658-024-00674-8

    2024 doi

  7. [14]

    Multipanel limited angle PET system with 50 ps FWHM coincidence time resolution: a simulation study,

    G. Razdevsek et al. , “Multipanel limited angle PET system with 50 ps FWHM coincidence time resolution: a simulation study,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 721 –730, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3115704

    2022

  8. [15]

    Design study of a dedicated head and neck cancer PET system,

    M. Li, B. Yockey, and S. Abbaszadeh, “Design study of a dedicated head and neck cancer PET system,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 489 – 497, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2020.2964293

    2020

  9. [16]

    Organ - dedicated molecular imaging systems,

    A. J. González, F. Sánchez, and J. M. Benlloch, “Organ - dedicated molecular imaging systems,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 388 –403, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2018.2846745

    2018

  10. [17]

    Walk-through flat panel total - body PET: a patient-centered design for high throughput imaging at lower cost using DOI -capable high - resolution monolithic detectors,

    S. Vandenberghe et al., “Walk-through flat panel total - body PET: a patient-centered design for high throughput imaging at lower cost using DOI -capable high - resolution monolithic detectors,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3558–3571, Oct. 2023, doi: 1...

    2023 doi

  11. [18]

    Limited-angle TOF -PET for intraoperative surgical applications: proof of concept and first experimental data,

    S. Sajedi, L. Bläckberg, S. Majewski, and H. Sabet, “Limited-angle TOF -PET for intraoperative surgical applications: proof of concept and first experimental data,” J. Instrum., vol. 17, no. 01, p. T01002, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/17/01/T01002

    2022 doi

  12. [19]

    A panel PET with window: design, performance evaluation, and prototype development,

    B. Li et al. , “A panel PET with window: design, performance evaluation, and prototype development,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 310–321, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2017.2706284

    2017

  13. [20]

    Online proton therapy monitoring: clinical test of a Silicon -photodetector-based in -beam PET,

    V. Ferrero et al. , “Online proton therapy monitoring: clinical test of a Silicon -photodetector-based in -beam PET,” Sci. Rep., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 4100, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22325-6

    2018 doi

  14. [21]

    Lead -free MCP to improve coincidence time resolution and reduce MCP direct interactions,

    R. Ota et al. , “Lead -free MCP to improve coincidence time resolution and reduce MCP direct interactions,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 66, no. 6, p. 064006, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/abea2c

    2021 doi

  15. [22]

    BGO as a hybrid scintillator / Cherenkov radiator for cost -effective time- of-flight PET,

    S. E. Brunner and D. R. Schaart, “BGO as a hybrid scintillator / Cherenkov radiator for cost -effective time- of-flight PET,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 62, no. 11, p. 4421, May 2017, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6a49

    2017 doi

  16. [23]

    Experimental time resolution limits of modern SiPMs and TOF -PET detectors exploring different scintillators and Cherenkov emission,

    S. Gundacker et al. , “Experimental time resolution limits of modern SiPMs and TOF -PET detectors exploring different scintillators and Cherenkov emission,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 2, p. 025001, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab63b4

    2020 doi

  17. [24]

    Cherenkov radiation –based coincidence time resolution measurements in BGO scintillators,

    A. Gonzalez-Montoro, S. Pourashraf, J. W. Cates, and C. S. Levin, “Cherenkov radiation –based coincidence time resolution measurements in BGO scintillators,” Front. Phys., vol. 10, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.816384

    2022

  18. [25]

    Exploring cherenkov emission of BGO for TOF -PET,

    N. Kratochwil, E. Auffray, and S. Gundacker, “Exploring cherenkov emission of BGO for TOF -PET,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 619–629, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2020.3030483

    2021

  19. [26]

    On timing -optimized SiPMs for Cherenkov detection to boost low cost time -of-flight PET,

    S. Gundacker et al. , “On timing -optimized SiPMs for Cherenkov detection to boost low cost time -of-flight PET,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 68, no. 16, p. 165016, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ace8ee

    2023 doi

  20. [27]

    Emphasizing Cherenkov photons from bismuth germanate by single photon response deconvolution,

    R. Ota and K. Ote, “Emphasizing Cherenkov photons from bismuth germanate by single photon response deconvolution,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 595 –606, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2024.3403959

    2024

  21. [28]

    Dual -ended readout of bismuth germanate to improve timing resolution in time-of-flight PET,

    S. I. Kwon, E. Roncali, A. Gola, G. Paternoster, C. Piemonte, and S. R. Cherry, “Dual -ended readout of bismuth germanate to improve timing resolution in time-of-flight PET,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 64, no. 10, p. 105007, May 2019, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab18da

    2019 doi

  22. [29]

    Lecoq, A

    P. Lecoq, A. N. Annenkov, A. Gektin, M. Korzhik, and C. Pédrini, Inorganic Scintillators for Detector Systems: Physical Principles and Crystal Engineering; 1st ed. in Particle acceleration and detection. Berlin: Springer,

  23. [30]

    Optical properties of bismuth germanate,

    G. E. Jellison, Jr., S. Auluck, D. J. Singh, and L. A. Boatner, “Optical properties of bismuth germanate,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 107, no. 1, p. 013514, Jan. 2010, doi: doi:10.1063/1.3272909

    2010 doi

  24. [31]

    A measurement of the light yield of common inorganic scintillators,

    I. Holl, E. Lorenz, and G. Mageras, “A measurement of the light yield of common inorganic scintillators,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 105 –109, Feb. 1988, doi: 10.1109/23.12684. 10 > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE -CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <

    1988 doi

  25. [32]

    A novel multi -anode MCP -PMT with Cherenkov radiator window,

    L. Ma et al. , “A novel multi -anode MCP -PMT with Cherenkov radiator window,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip., vol. 1049, p. 168089, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2023.168089

    2023

  26. [33]

    Microchannel plate photomultiplier tube R10754 -07- M16 | Hamamatsu Photonics

    “Microchannel plate photomultiplier tube R10754 -07- M16 | Hamamatsu Photonics.” Accessed: Jun. 30, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.hamamatsu.com/jp/en/product/optical- sensors/pmt/pmt_tube-alone/mcp-pmt/R10754-07- M16.html

    2024

  27. [34]

    Geant4 developments and applications,

    J. Allison et al. , “Geant4 developments and applications,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 270–278, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    2006

  28. [35]

    Performance characteristics of BGO detectors for a low cost preclinical PET scanner,

    H. Zhang et al. , “Performance characteristics of BGO detectors for a low cost preclinical PET scanner,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1038 –1044, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2010.2046753

    2010

  29. [36]

    NEMA Standards Publication NU 2 -2018 Performance Measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs (PETS), VA, USA., 2018

    2018

  30. [37]

    Design study of a brain-dedicated time- of-flight PET system with a hemispherical detector arrangement,

    S. Takyu et al., “Design study of a brain-dedicated time- of-flight PET system with a hemispherical detector arrangement,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 3, p. 035012, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab63ee

    2020 doi

  31. [38]

    Fully 3D list-mode time -of-flight PET image reconstruction on GPUs using CUDA,

    J. Cui, G. Pratx, S. Prevrhal, and C. S. Levin, “Fully 3D list-mode time -of-flight PET image reconstruction on GPUs using CUDA,” Med. Phys. , vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 6775–6786, 2011, doi: 10.1118/1.3661998

    2011 doi

  32. [39]

    High-resolution image reconstruction method for time - of-flight positron emission tomography,

    T. Yamaya, T. Obi, M. Yamaguchi, and N. Ohyama, “High-resolution image reconstruction method for time - of-flight positron emission tomography,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 45, no. 11, p. 3125, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/301

    doi

  33. [40]

    Improvement of Spatial Resolution With Iterative PET Reconstruction Using Ultrafast TOF,

    M. Toussaint, R. Lecomte, and J. -P. Dussault, “Improvement of Spatial Resolution With Iterative PET Reconstruction Using Ultrafast TOF,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 729 –737, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TRPMS.2020.3033561

    2021

  34. [41]

    Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data,

    H. M. Hudson and R. S. Larkin, “Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 601 –609, Feb. 1994, doi: 10.1109/42.363108

    1994 doi

  35. [42]

    Novel method to measure the intrinsic spatial resolution in PET detectors based on monolithic crystals,

    A. González-Montoro, F. Sánchez, P. Bruyndonckx, G. Cañizares, J. M. Benlloch, and A. J. González, “Novel method to measure the intrinsic spatial resolution in PET detectors based on monolithic crystals,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Ass...

    2019 doi

  36. [43]

    Investigation of a multi -anode microchannel plate PMT for time -of-flight PET,

    W.-S. Choong, “Investigation of a multi -anode microchannel plate PMT for time -of-flight PET,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 2417 –2423, Oct. 2010, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2010.2060211

    2010

  37. [2006]

    doi: 10.1007/3-540-27768-4

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.