2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC) 2009
DOI: 10.1109/nssmic.2009.5402383
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

General purpose graphics processing unit speedup of integral relative electron density calculation for proton computed tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The need to estimate proton paths on a one by one basis, coupled with the inability to use many well-established x-ray CT reconstruction methods, comes with a significant computational burden (Johnson 2017). Various avenues of research into overcoming this problem have been explored, from optimising the computer code for MLP evaluation (McAllister et al 2009), to alternative approaches approximating MLP through cubic splines(Collins-Fekete et al 2015) or polynomial approximations (Krah et al 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The need to estimate proton paths on a one by one basis, coupled with the inability to use many well-established x-ray CT reconstruction methods, comes with a significant computational burden (Johnson 2017). Various avenues of research into overcoming this problem have been explored, from optimising the computer code for MLP evaluation (McAllister et al 2009), to alternative approaches approximating MLP through cubic splines(Collins-Fekete et al 2015) or polynomial approximations (Krah et al 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The need to estimate proton paths on a one by one basis, coupled with the inability to use well-established x-ray CT reconstruction methods, comes with a significant computational burden. Various avenues of research into overcoming this problem have been explored, from optimizing the computer code for MLP evaluation (McAllister et al (2009)), to alternative approaches approximating MLP through cubic splines (Fekete et al (2015)) or polynomial approximations (Krah et al (2019)).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, only 6 or 8 floating point operations are required per depth u if the MLP is approximated by a polynomial of order M = 0 or M = 1, respectively. On the other hand, evaluating the conventional MLP expression ofSchulte et al (2008) (equation (A.1)) for M = 5 results in at least 47 floating point operations(McAllister 2009), even if sparsity of the matrices R 0 and R 1 is exploited.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%