ArticleScientific reports2020
Estimation of optimal number of gates in dual gated
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- From incidental positron emission uptake toFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Effect of respiratory motion correction and CT-based attenuation correction on dual-gated cardiac PET image quality and quantification.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Utility of cardiac imaging in patients with ventricular tachycardia.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gating of positron emission tomography images has been shown to reduce the motion effects, especially when imaging small targets, such as coronary plaques. However, the selection of optimal number of gates for gating remains a challenge. Selecting too high number of gates results in a loss of signal-to-noise ratio, while too low number of gates does remove only part of the motion. Here, we introduce a respiratory-cardiac motion model to determine the optimal number of respiratory and cardiac gates. We evaluate the model using a realistic heart phantom and data from 12 cardiac patients (47-77 years, 64.5 on average). To demonstrate the benefits of our model, we compared it with an existing respiratory model. Based on our study, the optimal number of gates was determined to be five respiratory and four cardiac gates in the phantom and patient studies. In the phantom study, the diameter of the most active hot spot was reduced by 24% in the dual gated images compared to non-gated images. In the patient study, the thickness of myocardium wall was reduced on average by 21%. In conclusion, the motion model can be used for estimating the optimal number of respiratory and cardiac gates for dual gating.
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.