ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Count-rate management in
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystem calibration is essential for accurate SPECT/CT dosimetry. However, count losses due to dead time and pulse pileup may cause calibration errors, in particular for
resultsThe sensitivities of two General Electric (GE) Discovery 670 Pro systems were assessed using two Jaszczak phantom geometries. SPECT/CT data were collected over two months, starting with an initial
conclusionsThe results show that adequate corrections for dead-time and pulse-pileup counting losses are essential for accurate calibration. It is argued that loss corrections should be based on total spectrum count rates in projections and not only on the 364.5 keV energy window data. The measurement campaigns presented in this paper, using basic tools and equipment, may serve as a model for establishing routines for count-loss corrections as well as for system calibration and regular control of system sensitivity. The data suggest that analysis of source and count concentration in a homogeneous Jaszczak phantom offers robust calibration, whereas analysis of source strength and counts in a delineated phantom insert offers a practical and robust method for regular quality control.
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.