ArticleIEEE transactions on nuclear science2016
Evaluation of Rigid-Body Motion Compensation in Cardiac Perfusion SPECT Employing Polar-Map Quantification.
Article in IEEE transactions on nuclear science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-modality deep learning-based [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Trial
- A review of state-of-the-art resolution improvement techniques in SPECT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2025Review
- Investigation of scatter energy window width and count levels for deep learning-based attenuation map estimation in cardiac SPECT/CT imaging.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Respiratory signal estimation for cardiac perfusion SPECT using deep learning.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Patient motion correction for dynamic cardiac PET: Current status and challenges.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Investigation of the physical effects of respiratory motion compensation in a large population of patients undergoing Tc-99m cardiac perfusion SPECT/CT stress imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have recently been successful in the development and testing of rigid-body motion tracking, estimation and compensation for cardiac perfusion SPECT based on a visual tracking system (VTS). The goal of this study was to evaluate in patients the effectiveness of our rigid-body motion compensation strategy. Sixty-four patient volunteers were asked to remain motionless or execute some predefined body motion during an additional second stress perfusion acquisition. Acquisitions were performed using the standard clinical protocol with 64 projections acquired through 180 degrees. All data were reconstructed with an ordered-subsets expectation-maximization (OSEM) algorithm using 4 projections per subset and 5 iterations. All physical degradation factors were addressed (attenuation, scatter, and distance dependent resolution), while a 3-dimensional Gaussian rotator was used during reconstruction to correct for six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) rigid-body motion estimated by the VTS. Polar map quantification was employed to evaluate compensation techniques. In 54.7% of the uncorrected second stress studies there was a statistically significant difference in the polar maps, and in 45.3% this made a difference in the interpretation of segmental perfusion. Motion correction reduced the impact of motion such that with it 32.8 % of the polar maps were statistically significantly different, and in 14.1% this difference changed the interpretation of segmental perfusion. The improvement shown in polar map quantitation translated to visually improved uniformity of the SPECT slices.
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.