Revision 1

Accepted · first revision · record

Title: Sensor material choice for clinical count rates
Plain: The detector can be made of cadmium telluride, cadmium zinc telluride or silicon, each failing in a different way at high photon rates. Which is best overall is unsettled.
Precise: Compare cadmium telluride, cadmium zinc telluride and deep-silicon sensors on detection efficiency at 20 to 140 keV, charge-transport polarization at fluxes above $10^{8}$ counts per second per $\mathrm{mm}^{2}$, charge-sharing fraction at a given pixel pitch, and K-escape, under identical clinical conditions. An answer is a classification of which material wins for which imaging task, with the physical reasons.
Settled by: Side-by-side measurement of the same imaging tasks on detectors of each material at clinical flux.
Kind: well-posed
Answer type: classification
References: (empty)
Literature status: contested
Status note: CdTe-based clinical systems have been in use since 2021; deep-silicon systems moved from clinical prototypes toward commercial release around 2025, and no side-by-side comparison under identical conditions has settled the question.
Posed since: 2012