Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Real-Time Requirements and Transferability in Compton Imaging: From the Detector Chain to the Application

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey of 83 Compton-imaging full texts finds performance reported at a single operating point in 65 of them, with count rate swept in none — the quantities transfer requires are the ones the literature omits.

desk verdict A transparent and useful meta-review whose reporting-metrology counts are strong; the domain-ordering claim is real but rests on an incommensurable 'Committed' measure and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10673 v1 pith:N6OGYZOK submitted 2026-08-11 physics.med-ph physics.ins-det

F. Albiol , Elena Larrea Estrelles , Salvador Tortajada , Luis Caballero , Jose Escalante , Alberto Albiol , Jose Luis Leganes-Nieto This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phphysics.ins-det
keywords Comptoncameragamma-rayimagingboundedlatencyreal-timesystemsimagereconstructiontechnologytransferdeploymentcommitmentoperatingpoint
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

The paper sets out to determine what evidence a report must contain for a Compton-imaging result to be carried from the stage that produced it to an application that did not build it. Walking the whole chain — detection, digitisation, calibration, event building, reconstruction, and delivery of a result to whoever acts on it — the review scores 83 full texts in context and finds performance reported at a single operating point in 65 of them, with count rate swept in none and no work stating a memory footprint, a precomputation cost, or a learned model's inference time. Measured on one template across five application domains, deployment commitment is ordered not by the size of the receiving literature, the incumbent, or the stated need, but by two properties of the problem: whether the incumbent can serve the task at all, and how many domain boundaries the output must cross before anyone acts — with publication distributed close to the inverse of commitment. The constructive claim is that a defined reporting vocabulary — an operating point, a declared cost, a latency bound per state, a named consumer — turns the viability test $Q_{\max}(T_{\mathrm{window}}, H_{\mathrm{source}}, R_{\mathrm{acc}}, L_{\mathrm{total}}) \ge Q_{\min}$ into a computation any third party can perform, and that a shared reference object is the one move that requires nobody's permission.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a compositional model of the imaging chain, organised by the four founding questions — what decision the image supports, the window in which it must be available, the quality below which the decision fails, and the extent and complexity of the source — and by the viability bracket that combines them: an application is viable where the maximum attainable quality inside the available window, $Q_{\max}(T_{\mathrm{window}}, H_{\mathrm{source}}, R_{\mathrm{acc}}, L_{\mathrm{total}})$, clears the minimum required $Q_{\min}$. Every stage-level quantity is placed inside that bracket so it can be declared in advance and verified afterwards: bounded latency as a sum of stage bounds $L_{\mathrm{total}} \le L_{\mathrm{transport}} + L_{\mathrm{order}} + L_{\mathrm{group}} + L_{\mathrm{pair}} + L_{\mathrm{queue}} + L_{\mathrm{encode}} + L_{\mathrm{recon}}$; the statistical wait $N/R_{\mathrm{acc}}$ kept apart from the computational wait, with streaming's gain being $C(N) - L_{\mathrm{total}}$; and source complexity normalised by $M_{\mathrm{source}} \approx (D/\delta)^d$, so that quoted event counts are comparable only after division by $M_{\mathrm{source}}$. The review uses this machinery as a scoring scheme — for each stage, what binds first and whether the published text contains the quantity that would compose — which is what produces the counts, and it drives the domain comparison through a second instrument, the one-template measurement of five application domains in Table 5.

What would settle it

Re-code the five application domains with a single commitment metric defined identically across all of them — for instance, a budgeted deployment programme with a committed operator and a stated acceptance test — and re-test whether the ordering by incumbent gap and domain-boundary count survives; the paper itself notes the commitment definitions differ by domain, so this is the direct check. A second, separable test: take any Compton camera, sweep count rate while holding the reconstruction fixed, and publish the resulting latency–quality curve; the paper's finding of zero such sweeps among 83 full texts would be falsified by a single counterexample, and the curve itself is the gradient the paper argues the field is missing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is a measurement of a reporting convention: performance is reported at one operating point in 65 of the 83 full texts, count rate is swept in none, source complexity is never swept, and the cost of a precomputation or the inference time of a learned model is reported in none. The consequence the paper draws is that superiority over a predecessor and sufficiency for an application are independent statements that accumulate separately: a programme can advance genuinely in the first frame while the second does not move, without any want of rigour. Across five application domains measured on one template, neither the size of the receiving literature, nor of the incumbent, nor of the stated need orders the domains as deployment commitment does, while whether the incumbent can serve the task at all, and how many domain boundaries the output must cross, do so consistently; the distribution of publication is close to the inverse of the distribution of deployment commitment. The positive thesis is that the gap is closable by reporting rather than by more physics: a reference object, a stated operating point and a declared cost make results commensurable, because the quantities the review assembles — bounded latency as a sum of stage bounds, statistical wait $N/R_{\mathrm{acc}}$ separated from computational wait, event counts normalised by source complexity $M_{\mathrm{source}} \approx (D/\delta)^d$ — are all declarable on paper before a prototype exists.

Load-bearing premise

The domain-ordering claim assumes the five 'Committed' measurements in Table 5 are commensurable even though each is defined differently per domain — flight hardware or a selected mission for astrophysics, a clinical endpoint for particle therapy, field or vehicle-borne measurement for decommissioning — so if those definitions do not measure the same underlying quantity, the consistent ordering by incumbent gap and boundary count could be an artifact of the coding rather than a property of the application domains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stage-reported improvements, even when genuine, do not compose: a speed-up ratio against a stage baseline cannot be added to a budget, compared with a task window, or used to judge whether an instrument serves an application, so superiority and sufficiency must be tracked separately.
  • Event counts from different works are comparable only after normalisation by source complexity $M_{\mathrm{source}}$; a result demonstrated on a point source does not extend to a distributed source by adding events or machines, because conditioning degrades as well as cost.
  • Adoption is readable in advance from problem properties rather than from market size: whether the incumbent can serve the task at all, and how many domain boundaries the output must cross, ordered the five measured domains exactly as deployment commitment did.
  • The quantities a report must contain for transfer — an operating point, a cost per resource, a latency bound per state, a named consumer — are all declarable before a prototype exists, and defining a shared reference object is the one step that carries no regulatory or clinical risk.
  • The statistical wait, not the algorithm, is what binds: since $T_{\mathrm{batch}} \approx N/R_{\mathrm{acc}} + C(N)$ and $T_{\mathrm{stream}} \approx N/R_{\mathrm{acc}} + L_{\mathrm{total}}$, the algorithmic cost the field publishes on is a diminishing part of the problem, while the physical term it measures least decides whether these instruments reach the applications they invoke.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editor's extension: the same context-scored marker scheme could be applied to neighbouring single-photon imaging literatures, such as coded-mask and collimated gamma cameras; if the single-operating-point convention recurs there, it is a property of stage-organised reporting in imaging generally rather than of Compton cameras specifically.
  • An editor's extension: the two problem properties that ordered the five domains could serve as a cheap screening test for any proposed new application — count the domain boundaries the output must cross and check whether the incumbent can reach the task — before any detector is committed; the paper identifies the regularity but does not propose it as a predictive tool.
  • An editor's extension: the paper's reporting vocabulary is directly testable as an intercomparison protocol, a round-robin in which each group images the same reference object and reports a stated operating point, a declared cost and a latency bound per state; the paper names the metrology gap but does not design the exercise.
  • An editor's extension: the batch-versus-streaming tradeoff implies streaming's benefit concentrates where the statistical wait is longest, which a group that owns a camera could verify by measuring completion time at two event rates — a test the paper's own corpus shows has never been run.
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 is a meta-review of the Compton imaging literature. It first develops a framework for evaluating imaging chains (four founding questions Q1–Q4, bounded-latency composition, a viability bracket Qmax ≥ Qmin inside Twindow), then reports quantitative counts over 83 full texts: performance reported at one operating point in 65, count rate swept in none, no reported cost of precomputation or model inference time, and sparse reporting of memory, separability, and calibration. It then compares five application domains on a common template (Table 5) and claims that neither the size of the receiving literature, nor the incumbent, nor the stated need orders domains by deployment commitment, whereas two problem-side properties (whether the incumbent can serve the task, and the number of domain boundaries crossed) do so, and that the distribution of publication is close to the inverse of the distribution of deployment commitment. The paper closes with a metrology agenda and a list of quantities that future reports should contain.

Significance. If the reported counts are reliable, the paper documents a substantial and actionable reporting gap: the field publishes stage-level improvements whose composition into an application cannot be evaluated from the text. Its strengths are real: the corpus is enumerated, denominators are stated for each count, markers are defined and applied to full texts in context, the direction of coding corrections is uniform, the authors include their own companion work in the corpus, and the supplementary material allows recomputation. The central descriptive claims about operating-point reporting and missing cost quantities are supported by this transparent accounting, and the proposed metrology remedy is constructive. The domain-ordering claim is more fragile; it rests on a deployment-commitment measure defined differently in each domain and on a small number of data points, and it needs strengthening or qualification before the conclusions can be accepted at their current strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5.3; §7 first bullet] The headline statistic is 'Performance is reported at one operating point in 65 of 83 full texts' (Abstract and §7), but §5.3 states that '70 yielded text clean enough for the operating-point and reporting markers.' If the operating-point markers were scored only on those 70 texts, the denominator should be 70, not 83, or the paper must explain how the remaining 13 texts were scored. Since this statistic is the paper's most prominent evidence of the reporting gap, please state the exact denominator for every reported count and reconcile the abstract, §5.3, and the conclusions.
  2. [Table 5; §5.1; §7 third bullet] The domain-ordering claim rests on the 'Committed' column, whose operational definition changes per row: for astrophysics it counts flight hardware, a balloon campaign, or a selected mission; for particle therapy it counts a clinical endpoint; for decommissioning and survey it counts field, on-site, or vehicle-borne measurement. A clinical endpoint is substantially later and stricter than a prototype used on site, and a selected mission has not flown, so the column does not measure a single quantity. The paper discloses these differences and calls the result a regularity, but disclosure does not establish commensurability. Please provide a sensitivity analysis under a common milestone definition (for example, any documented use in an operational setting with a decision taken on the result) or explicitly downgrade the ordering claim to a coding-dependent observation. Relatedly, the boundary-count statement 'That count orders the last column' is not strictly supported: Table 5 gives boundary counts 1 (decommissioning, 72%), 0 (astrophysics, 59%), and 3 (particle therapy, 6%), which is non-monotone; with only three committed domains, 'consistently' overstates the evidence.
  3. [§5.1; Table 5; §7 fourth bullet] The claim that 'the distribution of publication is close to the inverse of the distribution of deployment commitment' is presented without a quantitative measure of the closeness or a statement of which publication distribution is being used. The 'Ours' column in Table 5 (99, 219, 128, 111, 128) is not inversely ordered across the three domains with commitment values, whereas the declared-application counts in §5.1 (21, 20, 3, 2, 2) are more consistent with the claim. Please specify the exact comparison being made and, if possible, quantify it; as written, the conclusion is too strong relative to the evidence shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1; Fig. 3] The text says extended or distributed activity appears in 8 works of 83, while Fig. 3 reports 'extended source 10' on the same denominator; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§3.2.3; Fig. 4] The text says learned models appear in 27 works for image formation, while Fig. 4 reports 'learned model used 31' for the corpus; please clarify whether these are different markers and, if so, state both definitions.
  3. [Fig. 2] The caption describes Qmax for low- and high-entropy sources and the viable/not viable regions, but the figure itself would benefit from explicit axis labels and a legend identifying the curves; currently the reader must infer which curve is which.
  4. [References] Several non-ASCII names are corrupted in the bibliography, for example 'Jelnek' [7], 'Koodziej' [62], and 'Mller' [74]; these should be corrected to Jelínek, Kołodziej, and Müller.
  5. [Fig. 1; References] Fig. 1 is reproduced from the authors' companion work [3], which is listed as a 2026 preprint and may not be publicly available; please confirm that permission or a permanent identifier is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are external corpus measurements; the lone companion-work citation [3] supplies a figure and a definitional framework but is not load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central assertions (65/83 full texts report performance at one operating point; count rate swept in none; precomputation cost and inference time reported in none; publication distribution roughly inverse to deployment commitment) are empirical counts over an enumerated external corpus, not derivations from the authors' own results. The marker definitions and per-work screening are supplied as supplementary data, and the text states that every work counted appears in the bibliography so figures can be recomputed. The only self-citation is to companion work [3], used for the reproduction of Fig. 1 and for the 'handover magnitude' definition in Section 3.3; that definition is an evaluation lens rather than evidence for the counts, so it is not load-bearing. Section 5.3 explicitly states that the authors' own companion work was included in the corpus and scored by the same markers, which prevents the self-inclusion from silently inflating a claim. The Table 5 'Committed' column is defined per domain (flight hardware or selected mission for astrophysics; clinical endpoint for particle therapy; field, on-site or vehicle-borne measurement for decommissioning and survey), and the paper explicitly discloses this and calls the resulting ordering 'an observed regularity and not a predictive relationship' (Conclusions) and 'a regularity rather than a law' (Section 5.1). That is a construct-validity limitation about commensurability of milestones, not a circular reduction: the commitment coding is not defined in terms of the publication distribution it is compared with. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggled-by-citation, or renaming-of-known-result pattern appears. The derivation chain is self-contained; the framework definitions (bounded latency, viability bracket, Q1-Q4) are the authors' own but are applied as measurement criteria, not as predictions derived from the data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's empirical claims rest on three coding assumptions: corpus representativeness, commensurability of domain-specific commitment measures, and accuracy of the single-reviewer manual screening. Each is disclosed, but none is independently verifiable from the text alone.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The corpus of 83 full texts assembled from one bibliographic database via title, abstract and keyword queries plus cited references is representative of the Compton imaging literature surveyed.
    Section 5.3 describes the assembly; all counts in the review are over this corpus, so the central reporting claims inherit this assumption. The authors state precautions but do not use random sampling.
  • domain assumption Deployment commitment can be measured on a comparable ordinal scale across five domains using different operational definitions.
    Table 5 defines 'Committed' differently per domain (flight hardware, clinical endpoint, field measurement). The ordering claim requires these to be commensurable.
  • domain assumption The authors' manual marker screening, with corrections always reducing counts, is accurate and complete for the properties examined.
    Section 5.2 explains the context check and reports that no inspection converted an absence into a presence, but no inter-rater reliability or independent second coder is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Requirements and Transferability in Compton Imaging: From the Detector Chain to the Application." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6OGYZOK

@misc{pith2026260810673,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Requirements and Transferability in Compton Imaging: From the Detector Chain to the Application},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6OGYZOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10673}
}
read the original abstract

Compton cameras are proposed for tasks whose value decays with delay: verifying a range during irradiation, guiding an intervention, characterising an inaccessible volume, surveying a band no telescope covers. Whether a device can serve such a task is settled by the composition of its whole chain, while the literature that would answer the question is organised by stage -- so claims made at application level routinely rest on evidence obtained at component level. This review walks that chain, asking at each stage what binds first and what a reader can determine from the published text, and then asks what governs whether a capability transfers between groups and between application domains. The evidence is of two kinds: 83 full texts scored in context against defined markers, and, for five application domains measured alike, the size of the receiving literature, of the need it states, of the incumbent and of deployment commitment. Performance is reported at one operating point in 65 of 83 full texts, with count rate swept in none: the field reports values where transfer requires gradients. An accelerator is used in 39 works and a learned model in 31, while separability is discussed in 28, a memory footprint given in 9, and the cost of a precomputation or the inference time of a model in none. Across domains, neither the size of the receiving literature, nor of the incumbent, nor of the stated need orders the domains as deployment commitment does, while whether the incumbent can serve the task at all, and how many domain boundaries the output must cross, do so consistently. The distribution of publication is close to the inverse of the distribution of deployment commitment. We give the quantities a report must contain for a third party to judge whether a method fits an application it was not built for.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10673 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two Compton events from the same source. Each photon scatters in the first detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The viability bracket. The task fixes Qmin; the system and the source fix Qmax as it grows with accumulated measurement. An application is viable where the attainable quality clears the required quality inside the available window, and a rise in source complexity can move the same system from one side of that test to the other without any change to the algorithm. decide whether a device can serve such a problem belo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The image and source axis. Phantoms and point sources are the default test objects; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The algorithmic axis, and an inversion. The mechanisms that produce the reported [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The clinical and the instrumentation literature, measured on the same markers. Above [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A comprehensive review on Compton camera image reconstruction: from principles to AI innovations.Biomedical Engineering Letters, 14:1175– 1193, 2024

    Soo Mee Kim and Jae Sung Lee. A comprehensive review on Compton camera image reconstruction: from principles to AI innovations.Biomedical Engineering Letters, 14:1175– 1193, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Katia Parodi and Jerimy C. Polf. In vivo range verification in particle therapy.Medical Physics, 45(11):e1036–e1050, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Albiol, Luis Caballero, José Escalante, Alberto Albiol, Salvador Tortajada, Elena Larrea Estrelles, and José Luis Leganés-Nieto

    Francisco J. Albiol, Luis Caballero, José Escalante, Alberto Albiol, Salvador Tortajada, Elena Larrea Estrelles, and José Luis Leganés-Nieto. Bounded-latency spherical-histogram reconstruction for compton cameras, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    Real-time adaptive proton therapy: An AI- based spatio-temporal mono-energetic dose calculation model (CC-LSTM).Computers in Biology and Medicine, 188:109777, 2025

    Ahmad Neishabouri, Andrea Mairani, et al. Real-time adaptive proton therapy: An AI- based spatio-temporal mono-energetic dose calculation model (CC-LSTM).Computers in Biology and Medicine, 188:109777, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Jong Hun Lee, Taek Jin Jang, Il Maek Lee, and Chun Sik Lee. Optimization and es- timation of parameters for a Compton camera consisting of the DSSD scatterer and the GAGG absorber with the Monte Carlo simulation.Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 77(12):1113–1117, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Zarei, S

    H. Zarei, S. Razaghi, Y. Nagao, M. Itoh, M. Yamaguchi, N. Kawachi, M.R. Ay, and H. Watabe. Evaluation and optimization of geometry parameters of gagg scintillator-based compton camera for medical imaging by monte carlo simulation.Journal of Instrumenta- tion, 18(01):P01035, 2023. 25

    2023

  7. [7]

    Characterizationofa5mmthickczt-timepix3pixeldetectorforenergy-dispersive γ-ray and particle tracking.Physica Scripta, 99(1):015301, 2023

    P Smolyanskiy, B Bergmann, P Burian, A Cherlin, J Jelnek, D Maneuski, S Pospil, and VO’Shea. Characterizationofa5mmthickczt-timepix3pixeldetectorforenergy-dispersive γ-ray and particle tracking.Physica Scripta, 99(1):015301, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    M Kawula, T M Binder, S Liprandi, R Viegas, K Parodi, and P G Thirolf. Sub-millimeter precise photon interaction position determination in large monolithic scintillators via con- volutional neural network algorithms.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 66(13):135017, 2021

    2021

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Evaluation of the PETsys TOFPET2 ASIC in multi-channel coincidence experiments.EJNMMI Physics, 8:30, 2021

    Vanessa Nadig, David Schug, Bjoern Weissler, and Volkmar Schulz. Evaluation of the PETsys TOFPET2 ASIC in multi-channel coincidence experiments.EJNMMI Physics, 8:30, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tofpet asic for pet applications.Journal of Instrumentation, 8(02):C02050–C02050, 2013

    M D Rolo, R Bugalho, F Gonalves, G Mazza, A Rivetti, J C Silva, R Silva, and J Varela. Tofpet asic for pet applications.Journal of Instrumentation, 8(02):C02050–C02050, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Olcott, Jonathon A

    Peter D. Olcott, Jonathon A. Talcott, and Craig S. Levin. Compact readout electronics for position sensitive photomultiplier tubes.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 52, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    InvestigationofthepowerconsumptionofthePETsysTOFPET2ASIC.IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, 2019

    Vanessa Nadig, Bjoern Weissler, Harald Radermacher, Volkmar Schulz, and David Schug. InvestigationofthepowerconsumptionofthePETsysTOFPET2ASIC.IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Johansen, Marisol De Brabandere, Taran Paulsen Hellebust, An- tonio Herreros, Christian Kirisits, Ruud van Leeuwen, Panagiotis Papagiannis, Mark J

    Javier Vijande, Jacob G. Johansen, Marisol De Brabandere, Taran Paulsen Hellebust, An- tonio Herreros, Christian Kirisits, Ruud van Leeuwen, Panagiotis Papagiannis, Mark J. Rivard, Frank-André Siebert, Frank Verhaegen, Jan Wiersma, and Åsa Carlsson Tedgren. Temporal drift in c...

    2025

  6. [14]

    3D reconstruction benchmark of a Compton camera against a parallel hole gamma-camera on ideal data.IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, 4(4):479–488, 2020

    Yuemeng Feng, Ane Etxebeste, David Sarrut, Jean Michel Létang, and Voichita Maxim. 3D reconstruction benchmark of a Compton camera against a parallel hole gamma-camera on ideal data.IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, 4(4):479–488, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Frederick P. Brooks. No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering.Com- puter, 20(4):10–19, 1987

    1987

  8. [16]

    Study of 3D fast Compton camera image reconstruction method by algebraic spatial sampling.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 954:161345, 2020

    Zhiyang Yao, Yongshun Xiao, Bo Wang, Yilin Liu, Qinhun Hou, Lu Lu, and Zhiqiang Chen. Study of 3D fast Compton camera image reconstruction method by algebraic spatial sampling.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 954:161345, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Real-time tracking of the bragg peak during proton therapy via 3d protoacoustic imaging in a clinical scenario.npj Imaging, 2(1), 2024

    Siqi Wang, Gilberto Gonzalez, Leshan Sun, Yifei Xu, Prabodh Pandey, Yong Chen, and Shawn Liangzhong Xiang. Real-time tracking of the bragg peak during proton therapy via 3d protoacoustic imaging in a clinical scenario.npj Imaging, 2(1), 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Haruyasu Nagai, Daiki Satoh, Toru Tanimori, and Atsushi Takada. Quantitative visualiza- tion of a radioactive plume using gamma-ray imaging spectrometry: estimation of initial release condition by machine learning and feasibility of real-time analysis in emergency monitoring a...

    2026

  11. [19]

    Study on intraop- erative localization of sentinel lymph nodes using freehand spect in breast cancer patients

    Maria-Ioanna Argentou, Evangelos Iliopoulos, Georgios-Ioannis Verras, Francesk Mulita, Levan Tchabashvili, Trifon Spyridonidis, and Dimitrios Apostolopoulos. Study on intraop- erative localization of sentinel lymph nodes using freehand spect in breast cancer patients. Videosur...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Brooks.The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering

    Frederick P. Brooks.The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975. 26

    1975

  13. [21]

    Development of an omnidirectional rotating compton camera for imaging 177lu radioactive contamination.PLOS One, 20(6):e0325586, 2025

    Hikari Tsukamoto, Hiroshi Muraishi, Ryoji Enomoto, Hideaki Katagiri, Mika Kagaya, Takara Watanabe, Takahiro Mizoguchi, Masaya Fukumoto, Daisuke Kano, Yusuke Watan- abe, Kazuya Sakaguchi, and Hiromichi Ishiyama. Development of an omnidirectional rotating compton camera for imag...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Simultaneous gamma-neutron vision device: a portable and versatile tool for nuclear inspections.EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation, 11(1), 2024

    Jorge Lerendegui-Marco, Víctor Babiano-Suárez, Javier Balibrea-Correa, Luis Caballero, David Calvo, Ion Ladarescu, and César Domingo-Pardo. Simultaneous gamma-neutron vision device: a portable and versatile tool for nuclear inspections.EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation, 11(1), 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A gamma-ray imaging camera for norm radioactivity detection

    C Altomare, L Di Venere, E Fanchini, F Giordano, F Loparco, M Morichi, F R Pantaleo, P Spinelli, and L Swiderski. A gamma-ray imaging camera for norm radioactivity detection. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1690(1):012065, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Fernandes, R

    A. Fernandes, R. C. Pereira, A. C. Neto, J. Sousa, B. B. Carvalho, V. Kiptily, C. M. B. A. Correia, and B. Gonçalves. FPGA real-time spectrum code for gamma-ray measurements. EFDA-JET Conference Contribution, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Feasibility of in-vivo 4D prompt-gamma treatment verification in proton therapy for pancreatic cancer.Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 40:101027, 2026

    Jonathan Berthold, Lena Nenoff, et al. Feasibility of in-vivo 4D prompt-gamma treatment verification in proton therapy for pancreatic cancer.Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 40:101027, 2026

    2026

  18. [26]

    Jonathan Berthold, Julian Pietsch, Nick Piplack, Chirasak Khamfongkhruea, Julia Thiele, Tobias Hölscher, Guillaume Janssens, Julien Smeets, Erik Traneus, Steffen Löck, Kristin Stützer, and Christian Richter. Detectability of anatomical changes with prompt-gamma imaging: First ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Range verification by means of prompt-gamma detection in particle therapy.Springer, 2020

    Aleksandra Wrońska and Denis Dauvergne. Range verification by means of prompt-gamma detection in particle therapy.Springer, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Potential margin reduction in prostate cancer proton therapy with prompt gamma imaging for online treatment verification.Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 26:100447, 2023

    Stefanie Bertschi, Kristin Stützer, Jonathan Berthold, Julian Pietsch, Julien Smeets, Guil- laume Janssens, and Christian Richter. Potential margin reduction in prostate cancer proton therapy with prompt gamma imaging for online treatment verification.Physics and Imaging in Ra...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Food and Drug Administration

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Quality system regulation (QMSR), 2026. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/postmarket-requirements-devices/ quality-management-system-regulation-qmsr

    2026

  22. [30]

    Towards real time compton imaging in demanding conditions

    Bernardo Gameiro, Jorge Lerendegui-Marco, Víctor Babiano-Suárez, Javier Balibrea- Correa, Gabriel de la Fuente Rosales, Ion Ladarescu, Pablo Torres-Sánchez, and César Domingo-Pardo. Towards real time compton imaging in demanding conditions. InEuro- Par 2024: Parallel Processin...

    2024

  23. [31]

    A time-of-flight-based reconstruction for real-time prompt-gamma imaging in protontherapy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09275, 2020

    Maxime Jacquet, Sara Marcatili, et al. A time-of-flight-based reconstruction for real-time prompt-gamma imaging in protontherapy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09275, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Performance evaluation of a multiple-scattering Compton imager for distribution of prompt gamma-rays in proton therapy.Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 70(2):184–191, 2017

    Taewoong Lee, Hyounggun Lee, Younghak Kim, and Wonho Lee. Performance evaluation of a multiple-scattering Compton imager for distribution of prompt gamma-rays in proton therapy.Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 70(2):184–191, 2017. 27

    2017

  25. [33]

    Towards machine learning aided real-time range imaging in proton therapy.Scientific Reports, 12(1):2735, 2022

    Jorge Lerendegui-Marco, Javier Balibrea-Correa, Víctor Babiano-Suárez, Ion Ladarescu, and César Domingo-Pardo. Towards machine learning aided real-time range imaging in proton therapy.Scientific Reports, 12(1):2735, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    MQTT version 5.0 – OASIS standard, 2019.https://docs.oasis-open.org/ mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/mqtt-v5.0.html

    OASIS. MQTT version 5.0 – OASIS standard, 2019.https://docs.oasis-open.org/ mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/mqtt-v5.0.html

    2019

  27. [35]

    Oliver, Ikechi Ozoemelam, Jorge Roser, and Gabriela Llosá

    Enrique Muñoz, Ana Ros, Marina Borja-Lloret, John Barrio, Peter Dendooven, Josep F. Oliver, Ikechi Ozoemelam, Jorge Roser, and Gabriela Llosá. Proton range verification with MACACO II Compton camera enhanced by a neural network for event selection.Scientific Reports, 11:9325, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Nagao, M

    Y. Nagao, M. Yamaguchi, S. Watanabe, N. S. Ishioka, N. Kawachi, and H. Watabe. Per- formance improvement of Compton imaging of astatine-211 by optimising coincidence time windows.Journal of Instrumentation, 16:C12031, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Nurdan, T

    K. Nurdan, T. Çonka-Nurdan, H. J. Besch, B. Freisleben, et al. FPGA-based data acquisi- tion system for a Compton camera.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 510:122–125, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    Development and applications of Compton camera — a review.Sensors, 22(19):7374, 2022

    Raj Kumar Parajuli, Makoto Sakai, Ramila Parajuli, and Mutsumi Tashiro. Development and applications of Compton camera — a review.Sensors, 22(19):7374, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    TOFPET2 ASIC and data acquisition software, 2025.https://www

    PETsys Electronics. TOFPET2 ASIC and data acquisition software, 2025.https://www. petsyselectronics.com

    2025

  32. [40]

    Rahmim, M

    A. Rahmim, M. Lenox, A. J. Reader, C. Michel, Z. Burbar, T. J. Ruth, and V. Sossi. Sta- tistical list-mode image reconstruction for the high resolution research tomograph.Physics in Medicine and Biology, 49:4239–4258, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    System modeling and image reconstruction algorithm optimization for a compton camera for hadron therapy range verification.The European Physical Journal Plus, 140:561, 2025

    Javier Roser and Gabriela Llosá. System modeling and image reconstruction algorithm optimization for a compton camera for hadron therapy range verification.The European Physical Journal Plus, 140:561, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Apress, 2019

    Michael Voss, Rafael Asenjo, and James Reinders.Pro TBB: C++ Parallel Programming with Threading Building Blocks. Apress, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Werner, J

    T. Werner, J. Berthold, F. Hueso-González, et al. Processing of prompt gamma-ray timing data for proton range measurements at a clinical beam delivery.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 64(10):105023, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    GPU-accelerated three- dimensional reconstruction method of the Compton camera and its application in radionu- clide imaging.Nuclear Science and Techniques, 34:52, 2023

    Ren-Yao Wu, Chang-Ran Geng, Feng Tian, and Zhi-Yang Yao. GPU-accelerated three- dimensional reconstruction method of the Compton camera and its application in radionu- clide imaging.Nuclear Science and Techniques, 34:52, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Rapid Compton cameraimagingforsourcetermsinvestigationinthenucleardecommissioningwithasubset- driven origin ensemble algorithm.Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 197:110133, 2022

    Zhiyang Yao, Yonggang Yuan, Jian Wu, Xin Liu, and Yongshun Xiao. Rapid Compton cameraimagingforsourcetermsinvestigationinthenucleardecommissioningwithasubset- driven origin ensemble algorithm.Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 197:110133, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Van-Giang Nguyen and Soo-Jin Lee. Gpu-accelerated iterative reconstruction from comp- ton scattered data using a matched pair of conic projector and backprojector.Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 131:27–36, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Quantitative image reconstruction for small-animal spect imaging including resolution recovery, scatter correction and attenuation correction.Physica Medica, 144:105761, 2026

    Amir Dareyni, Amirhossein Alikhani, Mohammad Ghorbanzadeh, Salman Rezaee, Mo- hammad Hossein Farahani, Behnoush Teimourianfard, Habib Zaidi, and Mohammad Reza Ay. Quantitative image reconstruction for small-animal spect imaging including resolution recovery, scatter correction...

    2026

  40. [48]

    Daniel, Y

    G. Daniel, Y. Gutierrez, and O. Limousin. Application of a deep learning algorithm to compton imaging of radioactive point sources with a single planar cdte pixelated detector. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54(5):1747–1753, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    3d compton image recon- struction method for whole gamma imaging.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 65(22):225038, 2020

    Hideaki Tashima, Eiji Yoshida, Hidekatsu Wakizaka, Miwako Takahashi, Kotaro Nagatsu, Atsushi B Tsuji, Kei Kamada, Katia Parodi, and Taiga Yamaya. 3d compton image recon- struction method for whole gamma imaging.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 65(22):225038, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    A feasibility study using an array of labr3(ce) scintillation detectors as a compton camera for prompt gamma imaging during bnct.Frontiers in Physics, 12, 2024

    Kiran Nutter, Tony Price, Tzany Kokalova, Stuart Green, and Ben Phoenix. A feasibility study using an array of labr3(ce) scintillation detectors as a compton camera for prompt gamma imaging during bnct.Frontiers in Physics, 12, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Novgorodova, A

    O. Novgorodova, A. Glatte, R. Hentges, T. Kgler, B. Lutz, K. Roemer, T. Teichmann, D. Weinberger, and A. Straessner. Characterisation of a high granularity multi-channel promptγ-ray detection system prototype for proton range verification based on the petsys tofpet2 asic.Journ...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Clear-pem system counting rates: a monte carlo study.Journal of Instrumentation, 2(01):P01004–P01004, 2007

    P Rodrigues, A Trindade, and J Varela. Clear-pem system counting rates: a monte carlo study.Journal of Instrumentation, 2(01):P01004–P01004, 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Coresi: a gpu-based software for compton camera reconstruction and simulation in collimator-free spect.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 70(4):045001, 2025

    Vincent Lequertier, tienne Testa, and Voichia Maxim. Coresi: a gpu-based software for compton camera reconstruction and simulation in collimator-free spect.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 70(4):045001, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    T. M. Binder, V. Anagnostatou, G. Dedes, K. Kamada, H. G. Kang, G. Lovatti, M. Nitta, M.J. Safari, A. Zoglauer, K. Parodi, T. Yamaya, and P.G. Thirolf. Component characteri- zation and commissioning of a gamma-pet prototype detector system.Frontiers in Physics, 10, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Compton-based prompt gamma imaging using ordered origin ensemble algorithm with resolution recovery in proton therapy.Scientific Reports, 9(1), 2019

    Zhiyang Yao, Yongshun Xiao, Zhiqiang Chen, Bo Wang, and Qinhan Hou. Compton-based prompt gamma imaging using ordered origin ensemble algorithm with resolution recovery in proton therapy.Scientific Reports, 9(1), 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Demonstration of in-vivo simultaneous 3d imaging with 18f-fdg and na131i using compton–pet system.Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2024

    Donghwan Kim, Linlin Yan, Kenji Shimazoe, Hiroyuki Takahashi, Kenichiro Ogane, Masao Yoshino, Kei Kamada, and Mizuki Uenomachi. Demonstration of in-vivo simultaneous 3d imaging with 18f-fdg and na131i using compton–pet system.Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Design and optimization of a multi-module compton camera system for thyroid scintigraphy.Physica Scripta, 101(20):205003, 2026

    Asuman Kolba, Cengizhan ztrk, and Bora Akgn. Design and optimization of a multi-module compton camera system for thyroid scintigraphy.Physica Scripta, 101(20):205003, 2026

    2026

  50. [58]

    Therrien, W

    A.C. Therrien, W. Lemaire, P. Lecoq, R. Fontaine, and J.-F. Pratte. Energy discrimination for positron emission tomography using the time information of the first detected photons. Journal of Instrumentation, 13(01):P01012–P01012, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Sakai, S

    M. Sakai, S. Tamaki, I. Murata, R. K. Parajuli, A. Matsumura, N. Kubo, and M. Tashiro. Experimental study on compton camera for boron neutron capture therapy applications. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Shuijun ZHANG, Zhichao ZHU, Zhicai LI, Junxiang YANG, Qiang WANG, Zhengjia SHI, Lianghong SONG, and Wen LUO. Fast three-dimensional localization of far-field radioac- tive sources using a compton camera based on the vector intersection with dual partition method.Acta Physica S...

    2026

  53. [61]

    S.R.H. Owe, I. Kuvvetli, A. Zoglauer, and C. Budtz-Jrgensen. Feasibility of using 3d czt drift strip detectors for small compton camera space missions.Journal of Instrumentation, 19(01):C01005, 2024. 29

    2024

  54. [62]

    Jonas Kasper, Awal Awal, Ronja Hetzel, Magdalena Koodziej, Katarzyna Rusiecka, Achim Stahl, Ming-Liang Wong, and Aleksandra Wroska. Genetic algorithm as a tool for detection setup optimisation for prompt-gamma imaging in proton therapy: Sifi compton camera case study.Physics i...

    2025

  55. [63]

    Hybrid compton-pet imaging for ion-range verification: a preclinical study for proton, helium, and carbon ther- apy at hit.The European Physical Journal Plus, 140(9), 2025

    Javier Balibrea-Correa, Jorge Lerendegui-Marco, Ion Ladarescu, Sergio Morell, Carlos Guerrero, Teresa Rodríguez-González, Maria del Carmen Jiménez-Ramos, Jose Manuel Quesada, Julia Bauer, Stephan Brons, and César Domingo-Pardo. Hybrid compton-pet imaging for ion-range verifica...

    2025

  56. [64]

    Improving compton imaging of 478 kev prompt gamma-ray in boron neutron capture therapy with neural network-based event filtering: a simulation study

    Jiye Qiu, Makoto Sakai, Caixun Zhang, Nikolaos Voulgaris, Shingo Tamaki, Sachie Kusaka, and Isao Murata. Improving compton imaging of 478 kev prompt gamma-ray in boron neutron capture therapy with neural network-based event filtering: a simulation study. Physics in Medicine & ...

    2026

  57. [65]

    Influence of event sequence reconstruction on imaging resolution of compton camera.Acta Physica Sinica, 74(10):100701, 2025

    Chunjie WANG, Qingdi GUAN, Wengang JIANG, Qingjiang YU, Feng XIE, Gongshuo YU, Jianfeng LIANG, Xuesong LI, and Jiang and XU. Influence of event sequence reconstruction on imaging resolution of compton camera.Acta Physica Sinica, 74(10):100701, 2025

    2025

  58. [66]

    Lerendegui-Marco, V

    J. Lerendegui-Marco, V. Babiano-Suárez, J. Balibrea-Correa, L. Caballero, D. Calvo, C. Domingo-Pardo, and I. Ladarescu. i-TED: Compton imaging and machine-learning techniques for enhanced sensitivity neutron capture time-of-flight measurements. In2021 IEEE Nuclear Science Symp...

    2021

  59. [67]

    Transition to gpu-based reconstruction for clinical organ-targeted pet scanner.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 70(5):055001, 2025

    Borys Komarov, Henry Maa-Hacquoil, Harutyun Poladyan, Brandon Baldassi, Anirudh Shahi, Edward Anashkin, Oleksandr Bubon, and Alla Reznik. Transition to gpu-based reconstruction for clinical organ-targeted pet scanner.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 70(5):055001, 2025

    2025

  60. [68]

    S. J. Wilderman, N. H. Clinthorne, J. A. Fessler, and W. L. Rogers. List-mode maximum likelihood reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images in nuclear medicine.IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 1998

    1998

  61. [69]

    Majid Kazemi Kozani. Machine learning approach for proton range verification using real- time prompt gamma imaging with compton cameras: addressing the total deposited energy information gap.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 69(7):075019, 2024

    2024

  62. [70]

    Fast image reconstruction for Comp- ton camera using stochastic origin ensemble approach.Medical Physics, 38, 2011

    Andriy Andreyev, Arkadiusz Sitek, and Anna Celler. Fast image reconstruction for Comp- ton camera using stochastic origin ensemble approach.Medical Physics, 38, 2011

    2011

  63. [71]

    Andreyev, A

    A. Andreyev, A. Celler, I. Ozsahin, and A. Sitek. Resolution recovery for compton camera using origin ensemble algorithm: Resolution recovery for compton camera.Medical Physics, 43(8Part1):4866–4876, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    Gpu-based list-mode tof pet image reconstruction with complete correction techniques.Medical Physics, 53(1), 2025

    Ziquan Yuan, Fenglin Zhan, Haoyu Lu, Yucun Hou, Runze Liao, Chenxi Li, and Jiany- ong Jiang. Gpu-based list-mode tof pet image reconstruction with complete correction techniques.Medical Physics, 53(1), 2025

    2025

  65. [73]

    List-mode tof-pet 3d image reconstruction using stochastic primal-dual network.Medical Physics, 53(2), 2026

    Kun Tian, Rui Hu, Yiming Wan, Zhenrong Zheng, Yunmei Chen, and Huafeng Liu. List-mode tof-pet 3d image reconstruction using stochastic primal-dual network.Medical Physics, 53(2), 2026

    2026

  66. [74]

    Near-field coded-mask technique and its potential for proton therapy monitoring.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 68(24):245028, 2023

    Ronja Hetzel, Vitalii Urbanevych, Andreas Bolke, Jonas Kasper, Monika Kercz, Magdalena Koodziej, Andrzej Magiera, Florian Mueller, Sara Mller, Magdalena Rafecas, Katarzyna 30 Rusiecka, David Schug, Volkmar Schulz, Achim Stahl, Bjoern Weissler, Ming-Liang Wong, and Aleksandra W...

    2023

  67. [75]

    On the role of single particle irradiation and fast timing for efficient online-control in particle therapy

    Denis Dauvergne, Oreste Allegrini, Cairo Caplan, Xiushan Chen, Sébastien Curtoni, Ane Etxebeste, Marie-Laure Gallin-Martel, Maxime Jacquet, Jean Michel Létang, Jayde Living- stone, Sara Marcatili, Christian Morel, Étienne Testa, and Yannick Zoccarato. On the role of single par...

    2020

  68. [76]

    Z. Liu, M. Pizzichemi, E. Auffray, P. Lecoq, and M. Paganoni. Performance study of philips digital silicon photomultiplier coupled to scintillating crystals.Journal of Instrumentation, 11(01):P01017–P01017, 2016

    2016

  69. [77]

    Prompt gamma imaging system in particle therapy: a mini-review.Frontiers in Physics, 12, 2024

    Bo-Wi Cheon and Chul Hee Min. Prompt gamma imaging system in particle therapy: a mini-review.Frontiers in Physics, 12, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Range monitoring capabilities with the SiFi-CC detector: spectral- spatial imaging with Monte Carlo simulated data

    SiFi-CC Collaboration. Range monitoring capabilities with the SiFi-CC detector: spectral- spatial imaging with Monte Carlo simulated data. InProc. IEEE Nuclear Science Sympo- sium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    Re- view of infn activities on characterization and applications of hybrid pixel detectors based on timepix4 asic.Frontiers in Sensors, 6, 2025

    Nicol Vladi Biesuz, Riccardo Bolzonella, Luca Brombal, Paolo Cardarelli, Viola Cavallini, Laura Antonia Cerbone, Luigi Cimmino, Pasquale Delogu, Alessandro Feruglio, Renata Longo, Vittoria Mazzini, Giovanni Mettivier, Gianfranco Patern, Valeria Rosso, Paolo Russo, Angelo Taibi...

    2025

  72. [80]

    Fast and memory-efficient reconstruction of sparse poisson data in listmode with non-smooth priors with application to time-of-flight pet

    Georg Schramm and Martin Holler. Fast and memory-efficient reconstruction of sparse poisson data in listmode with non-smooth priors with application to time-of-flight pet. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 67(15):155020, 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    Bandi, M

    Y. Bandi, M. Benoit, F. R. Cadoux, D.C. Forshaw, R. Hnni, D. Hayakawa, G. Iacobucci, S. Michal, A. Miucci, L. Paolozzi, O. Ratib, E. Ripiccini, C. Tognina, P. Valerio, and M. Weber. The tt-pet project: a thin tof-pet scanner based on fast novel silicon pixel detectors.Journal ...

    2018

  74. [82]

    S. R. Tornga, M. W. Rawool-Sullivan, and J. P. Sullivan. Three-dimensional Compton imagingusinglist-modemaximumlikelihoodexpectationmaximization.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 56(3):1372–1376, June 2009

    2009

  75. [83]

    An extended list-mode mlem algorithm for 3d compton image reconstruction from multi-view data.EPJ Web of Conferences, 288:06003, 2023

    Nhan Le, Hichem Snoussi, Zied Hmissi, Alain Iltis, Guillaume Lebonvallet, and Ghislain Zeufack. An extended list-mode mlem algorithm for 3d compton image reconstruction from multi-view data.EPJ Web of Conferences, 288:06003, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    Römer, and Wolfgang Enghardt

    Fernando Hueso-González, Fine Fiedler, Christian Golnik, Thomas Kormoll, Guntram Pausch, Johannes Petzoldt, Katja E. Römer, and Wolfgang Enghardt. Compton cam- era and prompt gamma ray timing: Two methods for in vivo range assessment in proton therapy.Frontiers in Oncology, 6, 2016

    2016

  77. [85]

    S. J. Wilderman, J. A. Fessler, N. H. Clinthorne, J. W. LeBlanc, and W. L. Rogers. Im- proved modeling of system response in list-mode EM reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 48, 2001

    2001

  78. [86]

    Daube-Witherspoon, Samuel Matej, Matthew E

    Margaret E. Daube-Witherspoon, Samuel Matej, Matthew E. Werner, Suleman Surti, and Joel S. Karp. Comparison of list-mode and DIRECT approaches for time-of-flight PET reconstruction.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 31(7):1461–1471, 2012. 31

    2012

  79. [87]

    A compton camera resolution enhancement by increasing the number of sensors per readout channel.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 72(10):3375–3385, 2025

    Zohar Davidov, Alon Osovizky, Nir Shlezinger, and Max Ghelman. A compton camera resolution enhancement by increasing the number of sensors per readout channel.IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 72(10):3375–3385, 2025

    2025

  80. [88]

    Characterization of a doi-corrected compton camera system based on lyso scintillators.Journal of Instrumentation, 20(10):T10004, 2025

    Changran Geng, Xiaowen Tian, and Xiaobin Tang. Characterization of a doi-corrected compton camera system based on lyso scintillators.Journal of Instrumentation, 20(10):T10004, 2025

    2025

  81. [89]

    Image reconstruction and elongation artifact reduction for a dualpanel dedicated prostate pet scanner.Medical Physics, 53(2), 2026

    Abdollah Saberi Manesh, Mehdi Amini, Yazdan Salimi, Katayoun Doroud, Crispin Williams, Themistoklis Williams, Hossein Arabi, and Habib Zaidi. Image reconstruction and elongation artifact reduction for a dualpanel dedicated prostate pet scanner.Medical Physics, 53(2), 2026

    2026

  82. [90]

    Comp- ton camera x-ray fluorescence imaging design and image reconstruction algorithm optimiza- tion.Journal of Imaging, 11(9):300, 2025

    Shunmei Lu, Kexin Peng, Peng Feng, Cheng Lin, Qingqing Geng, and Junrui Zhang. Comp- ton camera x-ray fluorescence imaging design and image reconstruction algorithm optimiza- tion.Journal of Imaging, 11(9):300, 2025

    2025

  83. [91]

    Novel prototype of a compton camera based on a monolithic gagg crystal.Nuclear Science and Techniques, 37(9), 2026

    Lin Song, Hao-Tian Qi, and Li-Hua Zhu. Novel prototype of a compton camera based on a monolithic gagg crystal.Nuclear Science and Techniques, 37(9), 2026. 32

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.