ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Feasibility of
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn image processing for activity quantification, the end goal is to produce a metric that is independent of the measurement geometry. Photon attenuation needs to be accounted for and can be accomplished utilizing spectral information, avoiding the need of additional image acquisitions. The aim of this work is to investigate the feasibility of
methodsA previously presented dual photopeak method, based on the differential attenuation for two photon energies, is adapted for the three photopeaks at 55 keV, 113 keV, and 208 keV for
resultsFor phantom measurements at clinically relevant depths, the average (and standard deviation) in activity errors are 17% ± 9.6% (LEHR) and 2.9% ± 3.6% (MEGP). For patient measurements, deviations from activity estimates from planar images from a full-sized gamma-camera are 0% ± 21% (LEHR) and 16% ± 18% (MEGP). For mouse measurements, average deviations of - 16% (LEHR) and - 6% (MEGP) are obtained when compared to a small-animal SPECT/CT system. The MEGP collimator appears to be better suited for activity quantification, yielding a smaller variability in activity estimates, whereas the LEHR results are more severely affected by septal penetration.
conclusionsActivity quantification for
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.