ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Impact of the dead-time correction method on quantitative
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. 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.
- State-of-the-art and future developments in dosimetry for SSTR- and PSMA-targeting radioligand therapies.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Review
- Bridging physics and practice: evaluating sensitivity, septal penetration, and detector dead time in terbium-161 gamma-camera imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Accuracy of holmium-166 SPECT/CT quantification over a large range of activities.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDead-time correction is required for accurate quantitative SPECT-based dosimetry in the context of personalised
methodsData from 16 SPECT/CT acquisitions of a decaying
resultsBoth per-volume DTCMs (DTCM2 and DTCM3) were found to be equivalent, with VOI count differences not exceeding 0.8%. When comparing the per-volume post-reconstruction DTCM3 versus the per-projection pre-reconstruction DTCM1, differences in VOI counts and absorbed dose estimates did not exceed 2%, with very few exceptions. The largest absorbed dose deviation was observed for a kidney at 3.5%.
conclusionWhile per-projection dead-time correction appears ideal for QSPECT, post-reconstruction correction is an acceptable alternative that is more practical to implement in the clinics, and that results in minimal deviations in quantitative accuracy and dosimetry estimates, as compared to the per-projection correction.
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.