Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21565959›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear medicine technology2011

Automated patient motion detection and correction in dynamic renal scintigraphy.

Russell D Folks, Daya Manatunga, Ernest V Garcia, Andrew T Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear medicine technology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Acquisition time reduction in pediatricJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Radiology · 2017
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Russell D FolksDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. rfolks@emory.edu
Daya Manatunga
Ernest V Garcia
Andrew T Taylor

Funding

Decision Support Systems for MAG3 RenographyR01EB008838 · NIBIB · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI TAYLOR, ANDREW THOMPSON · 2008 to 2011
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB008838NIBIB NIH HHS R01-EB008838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledKidney motion during dynamic renal scintigraphy can cause errors in calculated renal function parameters. Our goal was to develop and validate algorithms to detect and correct patient motion.

methodsWe retrospectively collected dynamic images from 86 clinical renal studies (42 women, 44 men), acquired using (99m)Tc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine (80 image frames [128 × 128 pixels; 3.2 mm/pixel]: twenty-four 2-s frames, sixteen 15-s frames, and forty 30-s frames). We simulated 10 types of vertical motion in each patient study, resulting in 860 image sets. Motion consisted of up or down shifts of magnitude 0.25 pixel to 4 pixels per frame and was either a gradual shift additive over multiple frames or an abrupt shift of one or more consecutive frames, with a later return to the start position. Additional horizontal motion was added to test its effect on detection of vertical motion. Original and shifted files were processed using a motion detection algorithm. Corrective shifts were applied, and the corrected and original (unshifted) images were compared pixel by pixel. Motion detected in the shifted data was also tabulated before and after correction of motion detected in the original data. A detected shift was considered correct if it was within 0.25 pixel of the simulated magnitude. Software was developed to facilitate visual review of all images and to summarize kidney motion and motion correction using linograms.

resultsOverall detection of simulated shifts was 99% (3,068/3,096 frames) when the existing motion in the original images was first corrected. When the original motion was not corrected, overall shift detection was 76% (2,345/3,096 frames). For image frames in which no shift was added (and original motion was not corrected), 87% (27,142/31,132 frames) were correctly detected as having no shift. When corrected images were compared with original images, calculated count recovery was 100% for all shifts that were whole-pixel magnitudes. For fractional-pixel shifts, percentage count recovery varied from 52% to 73%. Visual review suggested that some original frames exhibited true patient motion.

conclusionThe algorithm accurately detected motion as small as 0.25 pixel. Whole-pixel motion can be detected and corrected with high accuracy. Fractional-pixel motion can be detected and corrected, but with less accuracy. Importantly, by accurately identifying unshifted frames, the algorithm helps to prevent the introduction of errors during motion correction.

Indexed as

MovementAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsAutomationFemaleHumansKidneyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTechnetium Tc 99m MertiatideTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonYoung AdultTechnetium Tc 99m Mertiatide

Identifiers

PMID21565959
PMCPMC3104056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.