ArticleRadiological physics and technology2018
Impact of quantitative index derived from 123I-FP-CIT-SPECT on reconstruction with correction methods evaluated using a 3D-striatum digital brain phantom.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical review of partial volume correction methods in PET and SPECT imaging: benefits, pitfalls, challenges, and future outlook.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Novel approach to semi-quantification of tracer accumulation in dopamine transporter scan.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Combination of compressed sensing-based iterative reconstruction and offset acquisition for I-123 FP-CIT SPECT: a simulation study.Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated quantitation accuracy of the specific binding ratio (SBR) and specific uptake ratio (SUR) of dopamine transporter for various correction methods by using a novel three-dimensional striatum digital brain (3D-SDB) phantom comprised of segments containing the striatum, ventricle, brain parenchyma, and skull bone extracted from T2-weighted MR images. A process image was reconstructed by projection data sets with blurring, scatter, and attenuation from 3D-SDB phantom data. A 3D-iterative reconstruction algorithm was used without correction (OSEM), or with scatter (SC), attenuation (AC), AC + SC (ACSC), AC + resolution recovery (RR; ACRR), SC + RR (SCRR), AC + SC + RR (ACSCRR), AC + SC + RR + partial volume (PVC; ACSCRRP), and AC + SC + RR + PVC + ventricle (ACSCRRPV). Data were then quantified using SBR and SUR. Differences between measured and true SBR values were (in order): ACSCRR < ACSC < ACRR < AC < SCRR < SC < OSEM: the maximal error was 45.3%. The trend of differences between measured and true SUR values was similar to that of SBR; maximal error was 65%. The ACSCRR-corrected SUR, which was closer to the true value, was underestimated by 30.4%. However, the ACSCRRP-corrected SUR was underestimated by a maximum of 22.5%. The SUR in the ACSCRRPV was underestimated by 6.2%. The accuracy of quantitation was improved using various types of compensation and correction. Accuracy improved more for the SUR when PVC and ventricle correction were added.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30014182What 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.