[Gate-users] [ no subject ]

Wed Dec 19 17:23:36 CET 2007

Hi, MJ,

Did you use any blurring when you get this result?

If yes, you did not repeat what Irene et al did.

If no, you did confirm what they discovered. i.e., sigles with energy > 511 keV!

What's your point? 

Yu Chen, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Division of Nuclear Medicine
55 Lake Avenue North
Worcester, MA 01655-0243
Phone:  (508) 856-6123
Fax:    (508) 856-4572

-----Original Message-----
From: gate-users-bounces at lists.healthgrid.org on behalf of Park MinJae
Sent: Wed 12/19/2007 4:45 AM
To: 'Jasmine Schirmer'; Chen, Yu; gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
Subject: RE: RE: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]

Dear Jasmine,

First of all, I want to point out that my result run on 3.1.2 is same as
your result on 3.0.0.

I attached zoom-in plot of energy spectrum which the threshold is 650 KeV in
ROOT macro.

My result represents that GATE 3.1.2 shows normal falling down before 700
KeV.

2nd. You said about low energy threshold of 400 KeV...
But the result has 100~400 KeV, still.

3rd. You said...
[In both the old and new versions of GATE, the benchmark PET was
successfully completed and no difference in the energy spectra was
observed.] at Nov. 29...
but you say [the PET benchmark was successfully completed but the results
were not correct] now...
Which one is correct?

I recommend you re-installation of GATE 3.1.2 by the same one who installed
GATE 3.0.0

Good Luck,
MJ

-----Original Message-----
From: Jasmine Schirmer [mailto:jasmine.schirmer at tum.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:19 PM
To: Yu.Chen at umassmed.edu; Park MinJae; gate-users at lists.healthgrid.org
Subject: Re: RE: [Gate-users] [ no subject ]

Dear Min Jae and Yu Chen,

As you suggested, we performed the single_layer.mac simulation with 1/10 the
source activity. Once again we obtained an energy spectra which does not
fall to zero as expected (i.e. similar with the result using the higher
source activity). The energy spectra is attached to this email as
Gate312_single_layer_low_activ.ps. The output of the simulation for a low
energy threshold of 400kev is:

There are: => 87053 singles
=> 3550 coincidences
=> 508 intercrystal coincidences
=> 110 randoms
=> 14 intercrystal randoms

We also ran the SAME simulation with 1/10 activity using Gate3.0.0 and got
the expected energy spectra (Gate300_single_layer_low_activ.ps) and the
following output:

There are: => 86057 singles 
           => 5246 coincidences
           =>  0 intercrystal coincidences
           =>  97 randoms
           =>  26 intercrystal randoms

We should point out that we have tested our simulations on two other
computers in our department, in which GATE 3.1.2 has been installed by other
colleagues. In each case, the PET benchmark was successfully completed but
the results were not correct (i.e. the strange behaviour in the energy
spectra). So, it really seems that the problem is not related to the
computer used or with our installation of GATE.

Thanks for your help.
Jasmine and Irene

Original Message:

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

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengatecollaboration.org/mailman/private/gate-users/attachments/20071219/03dc2801/attachment.htm>