<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>RE: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Dear MJ and others,<BR>
<BR>
I think what Irene et al reported is possible since<BR>
benchmarkPET (and many other simulations) used blurring module<BR>
(e.g., 26% resolution in benchmarkPET). This will simply smear<BR>
any small difference in no blurring application like Irene<BR>
did.<BR>
<BR>
I am also puzzled by Irene's discovery:<BR>
Single's energy goes above norminal input energy without blurring in GATE<BR>
version 3.1.2.<BR>
<BR>
First, it is not likely a coincidence sorter problem (but that less coincidence<BR>
events problem probably is.).<BR>
<BR>
I think the problem could be due to:<BR>
<BR>
1) GATE single (pulse) algorithm change?<BR>
If an algorithm of single like all hits within a certain time window are collected and accounted<BR>
for one pulse is implemented, it is possible to simulate pileup effect, and then we can see unreal larger energy for<BR>
one single.<BR>
<BR>
2) any change in Geant4?<BR>
which corresponding Geant4 version?<BR>
Is it possible that Genat4 loses correct track and time information for one event and wrongfully assigns those steps after<BR>
a certain time to next event?<BR>
<BR>
To exclude those possibilities, a very low activity simulation will be helpful.<BR>
<BR>
Irene et al., can you do this: repeat your simualtion in v 3.1.2 at a very low activity? <BR>
<BR>
Looking forward to seeing your new results.<BR>
<BR>
Yu Chen, Ph.D.<BR>
University of Massachusetts Medical School<BR>
Division of Nuclear Medicine<BR>
55 Lake Avenue North<BR>
Worcester, MA 01655-0243<BR>
Phone: (508) 856-6123<BR>
Fax: (508) 856-4572<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: gate-users-bounces@lists.healthgrid.org on behalf of Park MinJae<BR>
Sent: Mon 12/17/2007 8:20 PM<BR>
To: 'Jasmine Schirmer'; gate-users@lists.healthgrid.org<BR>
Subject: RE: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]<BR>
<BR>
Dear Irene,<BR>
<BR>
Let me check what you are saying...<BR>
<BR>
There is no problem with benchmarkPET...<BR>
[In both the old and new versions of GATE, the benchmark PET was<BR>
successfully completed and no difference in the energy spectra was<BR>
observed.]<BR>
<BR>
In your simulation code, uphold value is 950 keV...<BR>
[However, the upper energy threshold of the benchmark is set to<BR>
650keV while our simulations are performed at higher upper energy<BR>
thresholds.]<BR>
[/gate/digitizer/Singles/upholder/setUphold 950. keV]<BR>
<BR>
In fact, I can't get that the benchmark is same but your code is<BR>
different...<BR>
<BR>
Can I take a look on your code and simulate your code with my gate?<BR>
<BR>
MJ<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: gate-users-bounces@lists.healthgrid.org<BR>
[<A HREF="mailto:gate-users-bounces@lists.healthgrid.org">mailto:gate-users-bounces@lists.healthgrid.org</A>] On Behalf Of Jasmine<BR>
Schirmer<BR>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:24 PM<BR>
To: gate-users@lists.healthgrid.org<BR>
Subject: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]<BR>
<BR>
Dear GATE users and developers,<BR>
<BR>
A few weeks ago, we sent an email to the users list concerning a problem we<BR>
are having with the newest version of GATE. The email was dated the 29th of<BR>
November and is titled 'differences in energy spectra from different GATE<BR>
releases'.<BR>
<BR>
At the moment, we can no longer use reliably the newest version of GATE<BR>
until this issue is resolved. To recall your attention, we showed a<BR>
difference in the energy spectra produced by two identical simulations using<BR>
two versions of GATE (version 3.0.0 and the newest 3.1.2). The newest<BR>
version gives a different and unexpected result for the energy spectra as<BR>
you can see from the figures attached in the previous email. (The energy<BR>
spectra does not fall to zero!)<BR>
<BR>
We kindly ask the developers and users to address this issue. In addition,<BR>
if anyone would like to perform a similiar test on their version of GATE, we<BR>
would be happy to provide the macro we used.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks in advance,<BR>
Irene Torres and Jasmine Schirmer<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Gate-users mailing list<BR>
Gate-users@lists.healthgrid.org<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users">http://lists.healthgrid.org/mailman/listinfo/gate-users</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>