ReviewAnnals of nuclear cardiology2020
Simulation Study of High-sensitivity Cardiac-dedicated PET Systems with Different Geometries.
Review in Annals of nuclear cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Noninvasive quantification of myocardial blood flow with PET is a vital tool for detecting and monitoring of coronary artery disease. However, current standard cylindrical PET scanners are not optimized for cardiac imaging because they are designed mainly for whole-body imaging. In this study, we proposed two compact geometries, the elliptical geometry and the D-shape geometry, for cardiac-dedicated PET systems. We then evaluated their performance compared with a whole-body-size cylindrical geometry by using the Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation toolkit. In the simulation, an elliptical water phantom was scanned for 10-sec, and we calculated the sensitivity and the noise-equivalent count rate (NECR). Subsequently, a digital chest phantom was scanned for 30-sec and the coincidence data were reconstructed by in-house image reconstruction software. We evaluated the image noise in the liver region and the contrast recoveries in the heart region. Even with the limited number of detectors, the proposed compact geometries showed higher sensitivity than the whole-body geometry. The D-shape geometry achieved 47% higher NECR and 44% lower image noise compared with the whole-body cylindrical geometry. However, the contrasts in the hot area obtained by the proposed compact geometries were not as good as that obtained by the whole-body cylindrical geometry. There was no considerable difference in image quality between the elliptical geometry and the D-shape geometry. In conclusion, the compact geometries we have proposed are promising designs for a high-sensitivity and low-cost cardiac-dedicated PET system. A further study using a defect phantom model is required to evaluate the contrast of cold areas.
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.