ArticlePloS one2025
Optimization of acquisition time and reconstruction parameters for quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography using iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the optimal measurement conditions for accurate standardized uptake value (SUV) analysis of iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) by examining the relationship between image convergence and quantitation. Single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images were acquired using JS-10 and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) body phantoms, with acquisition time per view varied (10, 30, 50, and 100 s/view). Image reconstruction was performed using three-dimensional-ordered subset expectation maximization, adjusting the product of subset and iteration (SI product; 60, 120, 180) and Gaussian filter parameters (8, 10, 12 mm). For the JS-10 phantom, we evaluated the dose linearity (DL), the recovery coefficient (RC) of individual rods, the scatter ratio (SR), and the coefficient of variation (CV). For the NEMA body phantom, we assessed the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the 17-mm-diameter hot sphere. We also evaluated the maximum and mean SUVs for all its hot spheres, and their relative standard error (RSE), using SUVs obtained at 100 s/view as reference. In the JS-10 phantom, the DL remained stable under all conditions. The RC decreased when the Gaussian filter was large and the SI product was small. A trade-off between the CV and the SR emerged, depending on the acquisition time and the SI product; optimal results were observed at 50 - 100 s/view and an SI product of 120 - 180. In the NEMA body phantom, contrast improved with acquisition times of ≥30 s/view, and the CNR increased as noise declined with longer acquisition times. At ≥50 s/view, variation in the maximum and mean SUVs decreased, with the RSE remaining below 5%. In conclusion, accurate SUV measurement with ¹²³I-MIBG requires an acquisition time of ≥50 s/view, an SI product of approximately 120, and a Gaussian filter of 10 - 12 mm. These findings provide a foundation for future studies comparing this method with the heart-to-mediastinum ratio, supporting its clinical application.
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.