ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Experimental evaluation of absolute quantification in
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the count-reduction method for planar bone scintigraphy: a phantom study focused on hot-lesion detection.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Experimental evaluation of absolute quantification inJournal 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the quantitative accuracy of clinical brain dopamine transporters (DAT) investigations utilizing MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study used an experimental phantom evaluation and a clinical dataset. Three-dimensional-ordered subsets expectation-maximization reconstructed the original and resampled datasets using attenuation correction, scatter correction, and resolution recovery. The reconstructed data were analyzed and reported as percentage difference, standardized uptake value reference (SUVr), and a coefficient of variation (CoV). The Taguchi method tested the impact of the three different parameters on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and SUVr, including number iteration, Poisson resampling, and phantom setup, with and without the plaster of Paris (POP). Six
resultsThe percentage activity difference between the phantom with and without POP is 20% and 5%, respectively. The SUVr reveals a 10% underestimate for both with and without POP. When it comes to the influence of Poisson resampling, the SUVr value for 75% Poisson resampling indicates 10% underestimation on both sides of the caudate and putamen area, with and without POP. When 25% of Poisson resampling is applied, the SUVr value is overestimated (±35%). In the Taguchi analysis, iteration numbers were the most dominant factor with the F-value of 9.41 and the contribution rate of 52.66% (p < 0.05) for SNR. In comparison, F-value of 9.1 for Poisson resampled with contribution rate of 58.91% (p < 0.05) for SUVr. Reducing counts by 25% from the original dataset resulted in a minimal bias in SUVr, compared to 50% and 75%.
conclusionThe optimal absolute SPECT/CT quantification of brain DAT studies using
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.