ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Quantitative
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsA phantom study was performed using the NEMA imaging quality phantom with the standard sphere set (diameters 10-37 mm), with the background prepared either with a 10.5:1 activity ratio or without activity. Imaging was conducted on a StarGuide (GE Healthcare) ring-based CZT digital SPECT/CT system using the manufacturer's recommended protocol. Scans were repeated over activity levels up to 2.2 GBq. Three reconstruction methods were evaluated: OSEM, Q.Clear without regularization term (QClearN) and Q.Clear with regularization term (QClearR), each tested with multiple iteration-subset combinations. To compare the reconstruction methods, recovery coefficient (RC), noise levels and spatial resolution were assessed.
resultsRC values increased with sphere size and number of updates. At 864 updates, RC ranged from 0.56 to 0.95 for OSEM, 0.52-0.92 for QClearN, and 0.52-0.92 for QClearR. Noise levels, quantified by the coefficient of variation, in OSEM increased from 0.07 to 1.16 with increasing number of updates, while the noise levels of QClearN and QClearR ranged from 0.07 to 0.40 and 0.07 to 0.38, respectively. Spatial resolution was assessed using the full with at half maximum (FWHM) derived from matched-filter analysis of a digital phantom, with values of 7.9-17.0 mm for OSEM, 8.7-17.7 mm for QClearN, and 8.8-17.8 mm for QClearR. Gibbs artifact appeared in all methods, intensifying with higher number of updates.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility of quantitative
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.