JNMT
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kalman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Turkington, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kalman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Turkington, T.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Volume 30, Number 2, 2002 63
© 2002 by Society of Nuclear Medicine


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Introduction to PET Instrumentation

Sandra Kalman, BS, CNMT

Edinburg, TX

TO THE EDITOR:

There is an error in your article "Introduction to PET Instrumentation" (1). I am not sure if it is a typographical error on your part—or if Dr. Turkington presented you with some erroneous text. On page 5 under the Heading "Projections," the article says, "For a ring with n detectors, there are n-squared/2 ways to pair up the detectors . . ." This is incorrect. I believe it should say, "there are (n-squared minus n)/2 detectors." If the article is correct, I would appreciate a description of how this can be. Thanks.

REFERENCES

  1. Turkington, TG. Introduction to PET instrumentation. JNMT 2001;29:4.-11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

 
Timothy Turkington, PhD

Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

REPLY:

Thanks for your message. You are correct in that n2/2 is not the exact formula. The exact formula is (n2 - n)/2, as you proposed.

For the large numbers of detectors typical in current PET detector rings, n2/2 (what I gave) is essentially the same as n(n - 1)/2 (the exact formula). For example, 600*600/2 = 180000 and 600*599/2 = 179700. I used the simpler formula because it is a very good approximation and because I think it makes the point more clearly that the number of pairs goes very closely with the square of the number of detectors. I probably should have said "approximately nn/2."





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kalman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Turkington, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kalman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Turkington, T.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY