ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
A novel dynamic cardiac phantom for comparing blood pool and myocardial perfusion tracers: initial evaluation with CZT-ERNA and PET-MPI.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNuclear imaging modalities can quantify cardiac volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but systematic differences between techniques complicate direct comparison. Phantom-based evaluations comparing myocardial perfusion and blood-pool methods are scarce.
methodsWe used a dynamic two-compartment cardiac phantom (myocardium and left ventricular [LV] lumen) with adjustable stroke volume and heart rate. Static and gated acquisitions were performed on cadmium-zinc-telluride equilibrium radionuclilde angiocardiography (CZT-ERNA) and gated positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (PET-MPI) under identical volumes and heart-rate settings. Computed tomography (CT) served as the reference for end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV). LVEF was derived from these volumes for all modalities. We also assessed the impact of phantom position relative to detectors, as well as the effect of attenuation correction via a thorax phantom.
resultsCZT-ERNA overestimated static LV volumes relative to CT, whereas PET-MPI underestimated them. Both modalities underestimated LVEF compared with CT-derived values, with a larger bias for PET-MPI. On PET-MPI, attenuation correction produced similar volumes with and without the thorax phantom. CZT-ERNA volumes decreased as detector distance increased.
conclusionUnder controlled phantom conditions, CZT-ERNA and PET-MPI show inverse biases for LV volumes and both underestimated LVEF versus CT. These findings point to the influence of reconstruction and contouring algorithms, attenuation correction, and camera positioning. The dynamic phantom enables direct comparison of perfusion- and blood-pool-based measurements and may support modality-specific calibration when translating absolute values across techniques.
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.