Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36064882›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2022

Towards accurate partial volume correction in

Rebecca Gillen, Kjell Erlandsson, Ana M Denis-Bacelar, Kris Thielemans, Brian F Hutton, Sarah J McQuaid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rebecca GillenInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK. rebecca.gillen.18@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9493-0019
Kjell ErlandssonInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1072-4382
Ana M Denis-BacelarNational Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0008-1598
Kris ThielemansInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5514-199X
Brian F HuttonInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Sarah J McQuaidInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/T026693/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Partial volume correctionPerturbationQuantificationSPECT

Identifiers

PMID36064882
PMCPMC9445108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.