ArticleMedical physics2020
Clinical evaluation of three respiratory gating schemes for different respiratory patterns on cardiac SPECT.
Article in Medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A projection-domain deep learning approach for respiratory motion correction of myocardial perfusion imaging using a multi-pinhole solid-state SPECT.Medical physics · 2026Article
- High-resolution in utero SV2A PET imaging of the nonhuman primate brain using the NeuroEXPLORER.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026Article
- Respiratory signal estimation for cardiac perfusion SPECT using deep learning.Medical physics · 2024Article
- Motion-correction strategies for enhancing whole-body PET imaging.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical evaluation of a novel atlas-based PET/CT brain image segmentation and quantification method for epilepsy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Pix2Pix generative adversarial network for low dose myocardial perfusion SPECT denoising.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Recent advances in voxel-based targeted radionuclide therapy dosimetry.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRespiratory gating reduces respiratory blur in cardiac single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). It can be implemented as three gating schemes: (a) equal amplitude-based gating (AG); (b) phase or time-based gating (TG); or (c) equal count-based gating (CG), that is, a variant of amplitude-based method. The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these respiratory gating methods for patients with different respiratory patterns in myocardial perfusion SPECT.
methodsWe reviewed 1274 anonymized patient respiratory traces obtained via the Vicon motion-tracking system during their
resultsThere are 47.1%, 24.3%, 13.5%, and 15.1% RR, PR, AR, and UR patients, respectively, among the 1274 patients in this study. The differences among the three gating schemes in RR were smaller than other respiratory patterns. The AG and CG methods showed statistically larger motion estimation than TG particularly in the AR and PR patterns. Noise of AG varied more in different gates, especially for AR and UR patterns.
conclusionMore than half of the patients reviewed exhibited nonregular breathing patterns. Amplitude-based gating, that is, AG and CG, is a preferred gating method for such patterns and is a robust respiratory gating implementation method given the respiratory pattern of the patients is unknown before data acquisition. Phase gating is also a feasible option for regular respiratory pattern.
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.