Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23840278›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2013

Investigation of attenuation correction for small-animal single photon emission computed tomography.

Hsin-Hui Lee, Jyh-Cheng Chen

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pre-clinical SPECT and SPECT-CT in Oncology.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hsin-Hui LeeDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, Experimental Building B306, No. 155, Section 2, Li-Nong Street, Baitou, Taipei City 112, Taiwan.
Jyh-Cheng Chen
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quantitative accuracy of SPECT is limited by photon attenuation and scatter effect when photons interact with atoms. In this study, we developed a new attenuation correction (AC) method, CT-based mean attenuation correction (CTMAC) method, and compared it with various methods that were often used currently to assess the AC phenomenon by using the small-animal SPECT/CT data that were acquired from various physical phantoms and a rat. The physical phantoms and an SD rat, which were injected with (99m)Tc, were scanned by a parallel-hole small-animal SPECT, and then they were imaged by the 80 kVp micro-CT. Scatter was estimated and corrected by the triple-energy window (TEW) method. Absolute quantification was derived from a known activity point source scan. In the physical-phantom studies, we compared the images with original, scatter correction (SC) only, and the scatter-corrected images with AC performed by using Chang's method, CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC), CT-based iterative attenuation compensation during reconstruction (CTIACR), and the CTMAC. From the correction results, we find out that the errors of the previous six configurations are mostly quite similar. The CTMAC needs the shortest correction time while obtaining good AC results.

Indexed as

AnimalsComputational BiologyHeartMalePhantoms, ImagingPhotonsRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyScattering, RadiationTechnetiumTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonX-Ray MicrotomographyTechnetium

Identifiers

PMID23840278
PMCPMC3693101
OpenAlexW2013681531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.