ArticleEJNMMI physics2017
Accuracy of
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving image quality in terbium-161 phantom imaging: Quantitative evaluation of DEW and TEW scatter correction methods.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Uncertainty analysis of single-time-point organ dosimetry compared with the multi-time-point method in radioimmunotherapy.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Quantitative SPECT/CT: Technique and Clinical Applications.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
- A critical phantom study of the energy window used forEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Establishing measurement traceability for quantitative SPECT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Accuracy of a whole-body single-photon emission computed tomography with a thallium-bromide detector: Verification via Monte Carlo simulations.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Quantitative capabilities of commercial CZT SPECT-CT cameras withEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Recent advances in radionuclide medical imaging techniques.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Innovative approaches in precision radiation oncology: advanced imaging technologies and challenges which shape the future of radiation therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- The Challenge of Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Image Segmentation in the Internal Dosimetry ofJournal of imaging · 2024Review
- Activity quantification and dosimetry in radiopharmaceutical therapy with reference toFrontiers in nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- QuantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- An anthropomorphic body phantom for the determination of calibration factor in radionuclide treatment dosimetry.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2023Article
- Theranostics and Patient-Specific Dosimetry.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2023Review
- Toward Single-Time-Point Image-Based Dosimetry ofJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- EANM dosimetry committee recommendations for dosimetry of 177Lu-labelled somatostatin-receptor- and PSMA-targeting ligands.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Quantitative SPECT (QSPECT) at high count rates with contemporary SPECT/CT systems.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- The effect of calibration factors and recovery coefficients onEJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Clinical implementation of PLANET® Dose for dosimetric assessment after [EJNMMI research · 2021Article
- Uncertainty analysis of tumour absorbed dose calculations in molecular radiotherapy.EJNMMI physics · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study is to assess accuracy of activity quantification of
resultsQuantification error for scans in air was better for TEW scatter correction (<6%) than for APDI (<11%). This trend was reversed for scans in water (<10% for APDI and <14% for TEW). For hot water, the best results (<18% for small objects and <5% for objects >100 ml) were obtained when APDI and IADT were used for scatter correction and segmentation, respectively. Additionally, we showed that planar acquisitions with scatter correction and tomographic scans provide similar CNF values. This is an important finding because planar acquisitions are easier to perform than tomographic scans. TEW and APDI resulted in similar quantification errors with APDI showing a small advantage for objects placed in medium with non-uniform density.
conclusionsFollowing the MIRD recommendations for data acquisition and reconstruction resulted in accurate activity quantification (errors <5% for large objects). However, techniques for better organ/tumor segmentation must still be developed.
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.