EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 680 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 680 (2025) 00046 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 680, 2025
The 4th International Conference on Energy and Green Computing (ICEGC’2025)
Article Number 00046
Number of page(s) 19
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202568000046
Published online 19 December 2025
  1. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K al, Apostolakis J, Araujo H, Arce P, et al. Geant4—a simulation toolkit. Barrand, et al. Nucl Instruments Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrometers, Detect Assoc Equip 2003;506(3):250–303. [Google Scholar]
  2. Strulab D, Santin G, Lazaro D, Breton V, Ch Morel. Gate (geant4 application for tomographic emission): a pet/spect general-purpose simulation platform. Nucl Phys B-Proceedings Suppl 2003;125:75–79. [Google Scholar]
  3. MacDonald L, Edwards J, Lewellen T, Haseley D, Rogers J, Kinahan P. Clinical imaging characteristics of the positron emission mammography camera: Pem flex solo ii. J Nucl Med 2009;50:1666–75. [Google Scholar]
  4. CMR Naviscan Corporation n.d. https://cmr-naviscan.com/. [Google Scholar]
  5. Association NEM. Performance measurements of small animal positron emission tomographs NU4-2008. NEMA Stand Publ 2008:1–23. [Google Scholar]
  6. Budinger TF, Vanbrocklin HF, Generator-Produced P, Radiopharmaceuticals R, Radionuclides. P. Positron-Emission Tomography (PET). The biomedical engineering handbook. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  7. Michael E Phelps. Pet: a biological imaging technique. Neurochem Res 1991;16:929–40. [Google Scholar]
  8. Massoud TF, Sanjiv S Gambhir. Molecular imaging in living subjects: seeing fundamental biological processes in a new light. Genes Dev 2003;17:545–80. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lecoq P. Scintillation detectors for charged particles and photons. Part Phys Ref Libr Vol 2 Detect Part Radiat 2020;2:45–89. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation cor rection for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33:166–79. [Google Scholar]
  11. Saaidi R, Villafuerte-Villafuerte MR, Sánchez Héctor A, Martínez-Dávalos A. Crystal scatter effects in a large-area dual-panel positron emission mammography system. PLoS One 2024;19. [Google Scholar]
  12. Havsteen I, Ohlhues A, Madsen KH, Nybing JD, Christensen H, Christensen A. Are movement artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging a real problem?—a narrative review. Front Neurol 2017;8:232. [Google Scholar]
  13. Saaidi R, Yassine Toufique, Abdelkrim Zeghari, Moursli RC El. Gate simulation study of the siemens biograph mct 20 excel pet/ct system. Polish J Med Phys Eng 2019;25:7–14. [Google Scholar]
  14. Moliner L, A. J. González, Soriano A, F. Sánchez, C. Correcher, A. Orero, et al. Design and evaluation of the mammi dedicated breast pet. Med Phys 2012;39:5393–404. [Google Scholar]
  15. Luo W, Anashkin E, Matthews CG. Performance evaluation of a pem scanner using the nema nu 4—2008 small animal pet standards. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2010;57:94–103. [Google Scholar]
  16. Reynés-Llompart G, Sabaté-Llobera A, Llinares-tello E, Martí-Climent JM, Cristina Gámez-Cenzano. Image quality evaluation in a modern pet system: impact of new reconstructions methods and a radiomics approach. Sci Rep 2019;9:10640. [Google Scholar]
  17. HPC-MARWAN n.d. https://hpc.marwan.ma/. [Google Scholar]
  18. Saaidi R, Zeghari A, Moursli RC El. Monte carlo simulation of two siemens biograph pet/ct system using gate: Image quality performance. Radiat Phys Chem 2024;218:111653. [Google Scholar]
  19. Juan José Vaquero, Kinahan P. Positron emission tomography: current challenges and opportunities for technological advances in clinical and preclinical imaging systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2015;17:385–414. [Google Scholar]
  20. Usman S, Patil A. Radiation detector deadtime and pile up: A review of the status of science. Nucl Eng Technol 2018;50:1006–16. [Google Scholar]
  21. Thibaut Merlin, Stute S, Benoit D, Bert J, Thomas Carlier, Comtat C, et al. Castor: a generic data organization and processing code framework for multi-modal and multi-dimensional tomographic reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 2018;63:185005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods 2012;9:676–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Torres-Urzúa LF, Alva-Sánchez H, Martínez-Dávalos A, García-Pérez FO, Peruyero-Rivas RM, Mercedes Rodríguez-Villafuerte. A dedicated phantom design for positron emission mammography performance evaluation. Phys Med Biol 2020;65:245003. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ko GB, Kim KY, Yoon HS, Lee MS, Son J-W, Im H-J, et al. Evaluation of a silicon photomultiplier pet insert for simultaneous pet and mr imaging. Med Phys 2016;43:72–83. [Google Scholar]
  25. Omidvari N, Cabello J, Topping G, Schneider FR, Paul S, Schwaiger M, et al. PET performance evaluation of MADPET4: a small animal PET insert for a 7 T MRI scanner. Phys Med Biol 2017;62:8671. [Google Scholar]
  26. Saaidi R, Tayalati Y, Fatimy A El. Optimizing positron emission tomography for accurate plant imaging using monte carlo simulations to correct positron range effects. Sci Rep 2025;15:13847. [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.