EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 601 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 601 (2025) 00089 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 601, 2025
The 3rd International Conference on Energy and Green Computing (ICEGC’2024)
Article Number 00089
Number of page(s) 10
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202560100089
Published online 16 January 2025
  1. Jiang, Chalich, and Deen, ‘Sensors for Positron Emission Tomography Applications’, Sensors, vol. 19, no. 22, p. 5019, Nov. 2019, DOI: 10.3390/s19225019. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. D. L. Bailey, Ed., Positron emission tomography: basic sciences. New York: Springer, 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. C. K. Hoh, ‘Clinical use of FDG PET’, Nucl. Med. Biol., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 737–742, Oct. 2007, DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2007.07.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. J. P. Pijl, T. C. Kwee, R. H. J. A. Slart, and A. W. J. M. Glaudemans, ‘PET/CT Imaging for Personalized Management of Infectious Diseases’, J. Pers. Med., vol. 11, no. 2, p. 133, Feb. 2021, DOI: 10.3390/jpm11020133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. A. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, L. Pan, and C. Sachpekidis, ‘Long axial field of view (LAFOV) PET-CT: implementation in static and dynamic oncological studies’, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, Apr. 2023, DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06222-3. [Google Scholar]
  6. L. R. MacDonald, R. L. Harrison, A. M. Alessio, W. C. J. Hunter, T. K. Lewellen, and P. E. Kinahan, ‘Effective count rates for PET scanners with reduced and extended axial field of view’, Phys Med Biol, no. 56, pp. 3629–3643, 2011, doi: DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/12/011. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. A. El Ouaridi, Z. Ait Elcadi, M. Mkimel, M. Bougteb, and R. El Baydaoui, ‘The detection instrumentation and geometric design of clinical PET scanner: towards better performance and broader clinical applications’, Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 032002, May 2024, DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ad2d61. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. J. K. Poon et al., ‘Optimal whole-body PET scanner configurations for different volumes of LSO scintillator: a simulation study’, Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 57, no. 13, pp. 4077–4094, Jul. 2012, DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/13/4077. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. S. Vandenberghe, P. Moskal, and J. S. Karp, ‘State of the art in total body PET’, EJNMMI Phys., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 35, Dec. 2020, DOI: 10.1186/s40658-020-00290-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. E. Berg and S. R. Cherry, ‘Innovations in Instrumentation for Positron Emission Tomography’, Semin. Nucl. Med., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 311–331, Jul. 2018, DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.02.006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. G. Santin et al., ‘GATE, a Geant4-based simulation platform for PET integrating movement and time management’, in 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Norfolk, VA, USA: IEEE, 2003, pp. 1325–1329. DOI: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2002.1239563. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc, ‘Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2018.’, Rosslyn USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. A. Ghabrial, D. Franklin, and H. Zaidi, ‘A Monte Carlo simulation study of the impact of novel scintillation crystals on performance characteristics of PET scanners’, Phys. Med., vol. 50, pp. 37–45, Jun. 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.05.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. G. B. Saha, Basics of PET Imaging: Physics, Chemistry, and Regulations. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16423-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. S. Surti, M. E. Werner, and J. S. Karp, ‘Study of PET scanner designs using clinical metrics to optimize the scanner axial FOV and crystal thickness’, Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 3995–4012, Jun. 2013, DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/12/3995. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. J. K. Poon, L. R. MacDonald, S. R. Cherry, and R. D. Badawi, ‘A Simulation Study of aLong Axial Field of View Whole-Body PET Scanner using Cylindrical and Anthropomorphic Phantoms’, IEEE, vol. 978, no. 1, pp. 4999–5006, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  17. R. D. Badawil, S. G. Kohlmyer’, R. L. Harrison, S. D. Vannoy, and T. K. Lewellen’, ‘The Effect of Camera Geometry on Singles Flux, Scatter Fraction and Trues and Randoms Sensitivity for Cylindrical 3D PET - a Simulation Study.’, IEEE TRANSACIIONS Nucl. Sci., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 1228–1232, Jun. 2000. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Surti, E. Lee, M. E. Werner, and J. S. Karp, ‘Imaging study of a clinical PET scanner design using an optimal crystal thickness and scanner axial FOV’, in 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Valencia, Spain: IEEE, Oct. 2011, pp. 3390–3394. DOI: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2011.6152615. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. L. Eriksson et al., ‘Potentials for large axial field of view positron camera systems’, in 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Dresden, Germany: IEEE, Oct. 2008, pp. 1632–1636. DOI: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2008.4775110. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. S. Karp, G. Muehllehner, and P. Countryman, ‘Effect of Increased Axial Field of View on the Performance of a Volume PET Scanner’, IEEE Trans. Med. IMAGING, vol. 12, no. 2, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  21. L. Eriksson et al., ‘An investigation of sensitivity limits in PET scanners’, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip., vol. 580, no. 2, pp. 836–842, Oct. 2007, DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2007.06.112. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.