ArticleEJNMMI physics2016
Multimodality calibration for simultaneous fluoroscopic and nuclear imaging.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nuclear Cardiac Imaging in the Interventional Suite.Current cardiology reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSimultaneous real-time fluoroscopic and nuclear imaging could benefit image-guided (oncological) procedures. To this end, a hybrid modality is currently being developed by our group, by combining a c-arm with a gamma camera and a four-pinhole collimator. Accurate determination of the system parameters that describe the position of the x-ray tube, x-ray detector, gamma camera, and collimators is crucial to optimize image quality. The purpose of this study was to develop a calibration method that estimates the system parameters used for reconstruction. A multimodality phantom consisting of five point sources was created. First, nuclear and fluoroscopic images of the phantom were acquired at several distances from the image intensifier. The system parameters were acquired using physical measurement, and multimodality images of the phantom were reconstructed. The resolution and co-registration error of the point sources were determined as a measure of image quality. Next, the system parameters were estimated using a calibration method, which adjusted the parameters in the reconstruction algorithm, until the resolution and co-registration were optimized. For evaluation, multimodality images of a second set of phantom acquisitions were reconstructed using calibrated parameter sets. Subsequently, the resolution and co-registration error of the point sources were determined as a measure of image quality. This procedure was performed five times for different noise simulations. In addition, simultaneously acquired fluoroscopic and nuclear images of two moving syringes were obtained with parameter sets from before and after calibration.
resultsThe mean FWHM was significantly lower after calibration than before calibration for 21 out of 25 point sources. The mean co-registration error was significantly lower after calibration than before calibration for all point sources. The simultaneously acquired fluoroscopic and nuclear images showed improved co-registration after calibration as compared with before calibration.
conclusionsA calibration method was presented that improves the resolution and co-registration of simultaneously acquired hybrid fluoroscopic and nuclear images by estimating the geometric parameter set as compared with a parameter set acquired by direct physical measurement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.