ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Towards accurate partial volume correction in
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimation and Correction of the Partial Volume Effect Using Personalized Phantoms of Lymph Node Metastases in Lutetium 177 SPECT/CT Dosimetry.Molecular imaging and biology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Partial Volume Correction Techniques for Sodium MRI of the Achilles Tendon.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Direct estimation of activity concentration in regional voxels with application toMedical physics · 2026Article
- Critical review of partial volume correction methods in PET and SPECT imaging: benefits, pitfalls, challenges, and future outlook.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Establishing measurement traceability for quantitative SPECT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- MIRD Pamphlet No. 32: A MIRD Recovery Coefficient Model for Resolution Characterization and Shape-Specific Partial-Volume Correction.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
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
backgroundCurrently, there is no consensus on the optimal partial volume correction (PVC) algorithm for oncology imaging. Several existing PVC methods require knowledge of the reconstructed resolution, usually as the point spread function (PSF)-often assumed to be spatially invariant. However, this is not the case for SPECT imaging. This work aimed to assess the accuracy of SPECT quantification when PVC is applied using a case-specific PSF.
methodsSimulations of SPECT [Formula: see text]Tc imaging were performed for a range of activity distributions, including those replicating typical clinical oncology studies. Gaussian PSFs in reconstructed images were estimated using perturbation with a small point source. Estimates of the PSF were made in situations which could be encountered in a patient study, including; different positions in the field of view, different lesion shapes, sizes and contrasts, noise-free and noisy data. Ground truth images were convolved with the perturbation-estimated PSF, and with a PSF reflecting the resolution at the centre of the field of view. Both were compared with reconstructed images and the root-mean-square error calculated to assess the accuracy of the estimated PSF. PVC was applied using Single Target Correction, incorporating the perturbation-estimated PSF. Corrected regional mean values were assessed for quantitative accuracy.
resultsPerturbation-estimated PSF values demonstrated dependence on the position in the Field of View and the number of OSEM iterations. A lower root mean squared error was observed when convolution of the ground truth image was performed with the perturbation-estimated PSF, compared with convolution using a different PSF. Regional mean values following PVC using the perturbation-estimated PSF were more accurate than uncorrected data, or data corrected with PVC using an unsuitable PSF. This was the case for both simple and anthropomorphic phantoms. For the simple phantom, regional mean values were within 0.7% of the ground truth values. Accuracy improved after 5 or more OSEM iterations (10 subsets). For the anthropomorphic phantoms, post-correction regional mean values were within 1.6% of the ground truth values for noise-free uniform lesions.
conclusionPerturbation using a simulated point source could potentially improve quantitative SPECT accuracy via the application of PVC, provided that sufficient reconstruction iterations are used.
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.