ArticleRadiological physics and technology2017
Validation of a calibration method using the cross-calibration factor and system planar sensitivity in quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography imaging.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Verification of the effect of acquisition time for SwiftScan on quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography using an anthropomorphic phantom.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Examination of cross-calibration and concentration linearity with quantitative gallium-67 single-photon emission computed tomography: phantom experiment.Radiological physics and technology · 2020Article
- Phantom and clinical evaluation of bone SPECT/CT image reconstruction with xSPECT algorithm.EJNMMI research · 2020Article
- Investigation of post-therapeutic image-based thyroid dosimetry using quantitative SPECT/CT, iodine biokinetics, and the MIRD's voxel S values in Graves' disease.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to validate the absolute quantitative accuracy of a calibration method for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using cross-calibration factor (CCF)- and system sensitivity-based calibration methods. The CCF obtained with different reconstruction parameters was evaluated using a cylindrical phantom (diameter 20 cm, height 20 cm). SPECT images were acquired with a positron emission tomography/computed tomography (CT) phantom. Subsequently, they were reconstructed by using ordered subset expectation maximization with resolution recovery, scatter, and CT-based attenuation correction. All reconstructed SPECT counts were converted to activity concentrations based on the CCF and system planar sensitivity. We placed 12 circular regions of interest, 37 mm in diameter, on the phantom background, and the converted activity concentration and relative measurement error were assessed. The CCF obtained using a cylindrical phantom was affected by the iterative update number and post-smoothing filter function. The activity concentration calibrated using the CCF showed over- and underestimation. However, the activity concentration obtained from the system planar sensitivity was similar to that gained using the phantom. The values obtained using the system planar sensitivity were within 10% of the activity concentrations obtained with the phantom. These findings demonstrated that the calibration method using system planar sensitivity provides accurate quantification within 10% of the true activity concentration. Further clinical examination is required to validate the present results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28822095What 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.