ArticleEJNMMI physics2018
Deadtime effects in quantification of
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging physics and practice: evaluating sensitivity, septal penetration, and detector dead time in terbium-161 gamma-camera imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Extravasation Frequency of [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Gamma camera imaging characteristics ofEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- A Monte Carlo study comparing dead-time losses of a gamma camera between tungsten functional paper and lead sheet for dosimetry in targeted radionuclide therapy with Lu-177.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of improved dead time correction on the quantification accuracy of a dedicated BrainPET scanner.PloS one · 2024Article
- Impact of the dead-time correction method on quantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- 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
- Tissue dose estimation after extravasation ofEJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Impact of dead time on quantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Gamma detector dead time correction using Lambert W function.EJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- EANM Dosimetry Committee series on standard operational procedures for internal dosimetry forEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Comprehensive SPECT/CT system characterization and calibration forEJNMMI 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the deadtime (DT) effects that are present in
resultsThe DT values of 5.99 ± 0.02 μs, 4.60 ± 0.052 μs, and 0.19 ± 0.18 μs were obtained for the primary photons (PP) recorded in the 113- and 208-keV photopeaks and for the full spectrum, respectively. For the investigated range of count rates, the DT correction factors of up to 23% were observed for PP corresponding to the 113-keV photopeak, while for the 208-keV photopeak values of up to 20% were obtained. These values were almost three times higher than the deadtime correction factors derived from the full spectrum.
conclusionsThe paralyzable model showed to be appropriate for the investigated range of counts, which were five to six times higher than those observed in the patient post-therapy imaging. Our results suggest that the deadtime corrections should be based on count losses in the scatter-corrected photopeak window and not on the deadtime determined from the full spectrum. Finally, a general procedure that can be followed to correct patient images for deadtime is presented.
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.