I think you should be able to enhance the resolution, despite the positron range, by performing properly modeled deconvolution (with convolution kernel from Bethe Bloch equations, or whatever other relevant other model). It can't be done super accurately, because of noise being a problem, unless you get very good signal to noise ratio some other way.
Nope. Deconvolution is ill-defined. You can't improve PET spatial more than the physical resolution of your system (considering positron range and crystals geometry)
@@LucaABC852 Naively, couldn't you just use an isotropic PSF to compensate for the positron range? Or are you saying that other aspects of PET dominate the physical resolution?
I think you should be able to enhance the resolution, despite the positron range, by performing properly modeled deconvolution (with convolution kernel from Bethe Bloch equations, or whatever other relevant other model). It can't be done super accurately, because of noise being a problem, unless you get very good signal to noise ratio some other way.
Nope. Deconvolution is ill-defined. You can't improve PET spatial more than the physical resolution of your system (considering positron range and crystals geometry)
@@LucaABC852 Naively, couldn't you just use an isotropic PSF to compensate for the positron range? Or are you saying that other aspects of PET dominate the physical resolution?
Thanks! This helped SO MUCH!!!
This is great, would love to know the progress made for the past 2years. Kindly share email
Innovations appreciated.
Cool stuff