ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Evaluation of modified window-based scatter compensation in quantitative
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimisation of Q.Clear (BSREM) Reconstruction Parameters forBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe aim was to evaluate bias and precision for
methodsListmode-data for a NEMA phantom and anthropomorphic phantom were reframed to accommodate the updated settings for MSC and MSC + P. Reconstruction was performed using OS-EM (two to 30 iterations, 10 subsets) with compensation for attenuation, scatter (DEW/TEW, MSC and MSC + P), spatial resolution, and penetration at 208 keV. Volumes-of-interest following the manufacturer-specified sphere sizes were defined and activity-concentration was quantified for each sphere and the total phantom activity across six (10 min) time-frames. Bias was evaluated with mean relative error and precision with coefficient of variation (CV).
resultsImaging at 208 keV generally results in similar activity concentrations and total activity estimates for MSC and MSC + P (mean relative error: - 24.8 to - 23.4%, CV: 0.6 and 0.7% for the larges sphere). For 113 keV, a slightly better precision is obtained for MSC and MSC + P (mean relative error: - 15.4 and - 21.5%, CV: 0.6 and 0.7% for the largest sphere in the NEMA phantom) but a larger bias compared with TEW (mean relative error - 7.1%, CV 0.8%). The major difference is for total activity where the MSC and MSC + P decrease bias compared to TEW (5 and 4% versus 21% for 113 keV in the NEMA phantom).
conclusionsThe improvement in activity-concentration accuracy in regard to bias and precision is modest in small-volume high activity-concentration regions. However, the findings suggest potential value in preservation of total activity for both MSC and MSC + P.
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.