ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biological Sex Influences the Pharmacokinetics and Organ Dosimetry ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 3D-ring CZT gamma cameras in theranostics: is it a revolution?EJNMMI reports · 2026Article
- Low Radioactivity Levels in Blood Samples After Targeted Radionuclide Therapy: Minimal Radiation Exposure of Healthcare Staff.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Design and Evaluation of a Portable Pinhole SPECT System forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The SwiftScan step-and-shoot continuous mode improves SPECT scanning efficiency: a preliminary phantom and clinical test.EJNMMI physics · 2025Review
- Innovative approaches in precision radiation oncology: advanced imaging technologies and challenges which shape the future of radiation therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- The cycle effect quantified: reduced tumour uptake in subsequent cycles of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Activity quantification and dosimetry in radiopharmaceutical therapy with reference toFrontiers in nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- Reducing scan time inJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Physics-Guided Deep Scatter Estimation by Weak Supervision for Quantitative SPECT.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2023Article
- Simulation studies of a full-ring, CZT SPECT system for whole-body imaging ofMedical physics · 2023Article
- The effect of long-acting somatostatin analogues on the uptake of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Post-PRRT scans: which scans to make and what to look for.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2022Article
- Optimization ofJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this study was to find the optimal combination of collimator, photopeak and scatter correction for
methodsThree experiments [sphere-to-background ratios (SBR) 50:1, 10:1, and 2:1] were performed with the NEMA Image Quality phantom filled with
resultsWith SBR 50:1 and 10:1, both collimators met the Rose criterion (CNR > 5), whereas the MELP collimator showed a higher CNR for the 2:1 ratio. The RC
conclusion
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.