ArticleIEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences2026
Exploring Anti-Coincidence Technique for Scattering Contamination Rejection in a Simultaneous PET/SPECT Imaging System.
Article in IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Simultaneous PET/SPECT imaging instruments could enable comprehensive molecular characterization by combining the very high sensitivity and spatial resolution of PET with the ability to image a broad range of radionuclides, including therapeutic isotopes with SPECT. While PET and SPECT hardware can be integrated into a single hardware system, one of the major challenges in simultaneous PET/SPECT imaging is the down-scatter contamination from PET tracers, which can significantly degrade SPECT image quality and quantitative accuracy. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of using anti-coincidence and active shielding techniques to reject the down-scatter contamination in SPECT data. Using GEANT4 simulations, we analyzed the performance tradeoffs resulting from different choices of active shielding component design, coincidence time windows, and SPECT detector materials (CZT versus GAGG). The anti-coincidence technique effectively rejected contamination events, achieving a signal-to-noise (SNR) enhancement from 0.29 to 1.48 and noise equivalent count rate (NECR) improvement from 41.3 to 89.1 cps with moderate active shielding. Even without active shielding, anti-coincidence alone significantly improved SPECT image quality (SNR: 1.38; NECR: 87.0 cps), making it practical for systems where shielding is constrained. In reconstructed images, anti-coincidence improved contrast from 0.78 (raw) to 0.96 and reduced noise from 1508 to 257 counts, outperforming traditional triple-energy-window (TEW) correction (contrast: 0.84; noise: 855). The anti-coincidence technique is also compatible with post-processing scatter corrections, offering a promising strategy for future hybrid PET/SPECT systems in both preclinical and clinical settings.
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.