ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Comparison of scatter and partial volume correction techniques for quantitative SPECT imaging of
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extreme low-count regime for clinical
methodsA phantom with three 3D-printed spheres (191, 100, 48 ml) was imaged to compare transmission-dependent scatter correction (TDSC) to EWSC (440, 218 keV)/no scatter correction (no SC) (78 keV), as well as the impact of iterative Yang (IY)- and Richardson-Lucy (RL)-based PVC techniques, in terms of contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) and recovery coefficients (RC). These scatter correction and PVC methods were also compared for a patient cohort, with two SPECT/CTs acquired 24 and 48 h after [
resultsIn the phantom study, TDSC outperformed EWSC/no SC across all energy windows in terms of CNR, and in terms of RC for 218 and 78 keV energy windows under clinically relevant conditions. Application of PVC techniques resulted in a clear increase in RC and CNR across all energy windows. In the patient study, RBE-weighted kidney absorbed doses increased on average across all kidneys by 9 ± 4%, 30 ± 29% and 35 ± 29% for 440, 218 and 78 keV energy windows, respectively, when TDSC was applied. For lesion dosimetry, TDSC resulted in an average increase across all lesions by 16 ± 8% (218 keV) and 31 ± 30% (78 keV), and a decrease by 4 ± 8% (440 keV). In the patient study, IY-based PVC increased kidney absorbed doses by 172 ± 54%, 157 ± 45% and 146 ± 47%, for 440, 218 and 78 keV energy windows, respectively. RL-based PVC increased lesion absorbed doses by 34 ± 6%, 29 ± 8%, and 23 ± 10%, for 440, 218 and 78 keV energy windows, respectively.
conclusionThe phantom and patient studies demonstrated TDSC superiority over EWSC/no SC. PVC techniques substantially increased kidney (IY) and lesion (RL) absorbed doses, highlighting their value for post-reconstruction enhancement of
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.