WJNST  Vol.2 No.1 , January 2012
Reduction of Systematic Error in Radiopharmaceutical Activity by Entropy Based Mutual Information
ABSTRACT
The quality of the radiation dose depends upon the gamma count rate of the radionuclide used. Any reduction in error in the count rate is reflected in the reduction in error in the activity and consequently on the quality of dose. All the efforts so far have been directed only to minimize the random errors in count rate by repetition. In the absence of probability distribution for the systematic errors, we propose to minimize these errors by estimating the upper and lower limits by the technique of determinant in equalities developed by us. Using the algorithm we have developed based on the tech- nique of determinant inequalities and the concept of maximization of mutual information (MI), we show how to process element by element of the covariance matrix to minimize the correlated systematic errors in the count rate of 113 mIn. The element wise processing of covariance matrix is so unique by our technique that it gives experimentalists enough maneuverability to mitigate different factors causing systematic errors in the count rate and consequently the activity of 113 mIn.

Cite this paper
P. Kumar and T. Takeda, "Reduction of Systematic Error in Radiopharmaceutical Activity by Entropy Based Mutual Information," World Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 1, 2012, pp. 1-5. doi: 10.4236/wjnst.2012.21001.
References
[1]   L. Carole, C. Claude, E. Paul, F. Nuno, B. Bernard and T. Regine, “Optimization of Injected Dose Based on Noise Equivalent Count Rates for 2- and 3-Dimensional Whole- Body PET,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 9, 2002, pp. 1268-1278.

[2]   K. Weise and W. Woger, “A Bayesian Theory of Measurement Uncertainty,” Measurement Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1993, pp. 1-11. doi:10.1088/0957-0233/4/1/001

[3]   D. L. Smith, “Probability, Statistics and Data Uncertainties in Nuclear Science and Technology,” American Nuclear Society, Inc., La Grange Park, Illinois, 1991.

[4]   H. J. Kim, B. Zeeberg and R. C. Reba, “Evaluation of Reconstruction Algorithms in SPECT Neuroimaging II: Computation of Deterministic and Statistical Error Components,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 38, No. 7, 1993, pp. 881-895.

[5]   D. J. Kadarmas, E. V. R. Di Bella, R. H. Huesman and G. T. Gullberg, “Analytical Propagation of Errors in Dynamic SPECT: Estimators, Degrading Factors, Bias and Noise,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 44, No. 8, 1999, p. 1997.

[6]   P. Talou, et al., “Covariance matrices for ENDF/B-VII235, 238U and 239Pu Evaluated Files in the Fast Energy Range,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, 22-27 April 2007, Nice, France.

[7]   M. Neves, A. Kling and A. Oliveira, “Radionuclides used for Therapy and Suggestion for New Candidates,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 266, No. 3, 2005, pp. 377-384. doi:10.1007/s10967-005-0920-5

[8]   D. L. Smith, “Covariance Matrices and Applications to the Field of Nuclear Data,” ANL/NDM-62, 1981.

[9]   P. Meyer, “Introductory Probability and Statistical Applications,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1970.

[10]   F. H. Frohner, “Evaluation of Data with Systematic Errors,” Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 145, No. 8, 2003, pp. 342-353.

[11]   G. Deco and D. Obradovic, “An Information—Theoretic Approach to Neural Computing,” Springer, New York, 1996.

[12]   T. Cover and J. Thomas, “Elements of Information Theory,” Wiley, New York, 1991.

[13]   P. T. Krishna Kumar, “Estimation of Bounds for Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, Vol. 17, No. 9, 1990, pp. 483-486. doi:10.1016/0306-4549(90)90002-U

[14]   P. T. Krishna Kumar, “Algorithm for Evaluation of Bounds for Covariance Based Uncertainty Analysis,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, Vol. 18, No. 8, 1991, pp. 479-481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4549(91)90091-B

 
 
Top