Background: A new quality assurance and control method for electrometers using a new current source, different from the method published in the guidelines for electrometers, has been reported. This current source uses dry batteries and exhibits excellent performance in terms of voltage, temperature, and time characteristics. The electrometer sensitivity coefficient can be calculated by comparing the sensitivity of one electrometer with that of another on the electrometer calibration coefficient that has been calibrated by a calibration laboratory in advance in both methods. The guideline method requires two or more sets of ionization chambers and electrometers in the facility. In contrast, our method does not use ionization chambers; therefore, the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer can be measured in any facility. This study compared the uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity factor calculated using the new current source method (current method) with that calculated using a linear accelerator (LINAC) and ionization chambers (LINAC method) described in the electrometer guidelines.

Method: In this study, we used a current source that we invented previously by Kawaguchi Electric Works in Japan. The sensitivity ratios of the electrometers were measured with three manufacture’s electrometers. The electrometer sensitivity factor was calculated by multiplying the electrometer calibration coefficient. The ionization chamber was 30013 (PTW), and the current source was the current obtained from 10 MV TrueBeam X-rays under calibration conditions. The mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated. The time required to set up the ionization chamber for calculating the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer was also measured. The accuracy was confirmed by calculating the expanded uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity coefficients.

Results: The LINAC method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.072%. The gross time of the LINAC method was approximately 110 min. The current method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.0055% and took less than half the time taken by the LINAC method (35 min) because there was no waiting time for the ionization chamber to be set up and the applied voltage to stabilize under calibration conditions. The expanded uncertainties of the electrometer calibration coefficients were 0.36% and 0.36%, respectively.

Conclusion: The new cross-comparison method for electrometer sensitivity factors using a current source is more efficient and useful than the linear accelerator method described in the guidelines; furthermore, this method ensured accuracy for quality assurance and control of electrometers.

This is an explanatory paper on Sun Il Kwon et al., Nat. Photon. 15: 914–918, 2021 and some parts of this manuscript are translated from the paper. Medical imaging modalities such as X-ray computed tomography, Magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography (PET), and single photon emission computed tomography, require image reconstruction processes, consequently constraining them to form cylindrical shapes. However, among them, only PET can use additional information, so called time of flight, on an event-by-event basis. If coincidence time resolution (CTR) of PET detectors improved to 30 ps, which corresponds to spatial resolution of 4.5 mm, directly localizing electron-positron annihilation point is possible, allowing us to circumvent image reconstruction processes and free us from the geometric constraint. We call this concept direct positron emission imaging (dPEI). We have developed ultrafast radiation detectors by focusing on Cherenkov photon detection. Furthermore, the CTR of 32 ps being equivalent to 4.8 mm spatial resolution is achieved by combining deep learning-based signal processing with the detectors. In this article, we explain how we developed the detectors and demonstrated the first dPEI using different types of phantoms, how we will tackle limitations to be addressed to make the dPEI more practical, and how dPEI will emerge as an imaging modality in nuclear medicine.