Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26233207›Full record

ReviewMedical physics2015

Review of SPECT collimator selection, optimization, and fabrication for clinical and preclinical imaging.

Karen Van Audenhaege, Roel Van Holen, Stefaan Vandenberghe, Christian Vanhove, Scott D Metzler, Stephen C Moore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing 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

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evolving SPECT-CT technology.The British journal of radiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Scatter correction for self-collimating SPECT using a 3D U-Net framework.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  9. (Hybrid) SPECT and PET Technologies.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. 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
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Design and Evaluation of a Portable Pinhole SPECT System forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Karen Van AudenhaegeDepartment of Electronics and Information Systems, MEDISIP-IBiTech, Ghent University-iMinds Medical IT, De Pintelaan 185 block B/5, Ghent B-9000, Belgium.
Roel Van HolenDepartment of Electronics and Information Systems, MEDISIP-IBiTech, Ghent University-iMinds Medical IT, De Pintelaan 185 block B/5, Ghent B-9000, Belgium.
Stefaan VandenbergheDepartment of Electronics and Information Systems, MEDISIP-IBiTech, Ghent University-iMinds Medical IT, De Pintelaan 185 block B/5, Ghent B-9000, Belgium.
Christian VanhoveDepartment of Electronics and Information Systems, MEDISIP-IBiTech, Ghent University-iMinds Medical IT, De Pintelaan 185 block B/5, Ghent B-9000, Belgium.
Scott D MetzlerDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.
Stephen C MooreDivision of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Funding

Development of a High Performance Clinical Cardiac SPECT/TCT SystemR01HL108119 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI METZLER, SCOTT DEAN · 2012 to 2020
$7.3M
Preclinical cardiac imaging package for clinical SPECT systemsR01HL111883 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI METZLER, SCOTT DEAN, MOORE, STEPHEN C. · 2012 to 2015
$2.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL108119NHLBI NIH HHS R01-HL-108119NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL111883NHLBI NIH HHS R01-HL-111883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In single photon emission computed tomography, the choice of the collimator has a major impact on the sensitivity and resolution of the system. Traditional parallel-hole and fan-beam collimators used in clinical practice, for example, have a relatively poor sensitivity and subcentimeter spatial resolution, while in small-animal imaging, pinhole collimators are used to obtain submillimeter resolution and multiple pinholes are often combined to increase sensitivity. This paper reviews methods for production, sensitivity maximization, and task-based optimization of collimation for both clinical and preclinical imaging applications. New opportunities for improved collimation are now arising primarily because of (i) new collimator-production techniques and (ii) detectors with improved intrinsic spatial resolution that have recently become available. These new technologies are expected to impact the design of collimators in the future. The authors also discuss concepts like septal penetration, high-resolution applications, multiplexing, sampling completeness, and adaptive systems, and the authors conclude with an example of an optimization study for a parallel-hole, fan-beam, cone-beam, and multiple-pinhole collimator for different applications.

Indexed as

AnimalsEquipment DesignHumansTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon

Identifiers

PMID26233207
PMCPMC5148182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.