ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2023
Detection and correction of patient motion in dynamic
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Motion Correction on Quantitative Perfusion Indices and Threshold-Based Interpretation inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated long axial field of view PET image processing and kinetic modelling with the TurBO toolbox.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Data-Driven Motion Correction Algorithm: Validation in [Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient motion constitutes a limitation to
methodsSimulated data consisting of 16 motions applied to 10 motion-free scans were motion corrected using two approaches, pre-analysis and post-analysis for motion identification. Both approaches employed a manual frame-by-frame correction method. In addition, a clinical cohort was analyzed for assessment of prevalence and effect of motion and motion correction.
resultsMotion correction was performed on 94% (pre-analysis) and 64% (post-analysis) of the scans. Large motion artifacts were corrected in 91% (pre-analysis) and 74% (post-analysis) of scans. Artifacts in MBF were reduced in 56% (pre-analysis) and 58% (post-analysis) of the scans. The prevalence of motion in the clinical patient cohort (n = 762) was 10%. Motion correction altered exam interpretation in only 10 (1.3%) clinical patient exams.
conclusionFrame-by-frame motion correction after visual inspection is useful in reducing motion artifacts in cardiac
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.