MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965589044 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e32832eabec

Small field-of-view cardiac SPECT can be implemented on hybrid SPECT/CT platforms where data acquisition and reconstruction are guided by CT

2009· article· en· W1965589044 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Sabondjian, Robert Z. Stodilka, Tarik Belhocine, M. King, Gerald Wisenberg, Frank S. Prato

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCedars-Sinai Medical Center
KeywordsImaging phantomSingle-photon emission computed tomographyNuclear medicineIterative reconstructionTruncation (statistics)Myocardial perfusion imagingSpect imagingCardiac imagingField of viewCorrelation coefficientTomographyEmission computed tomographyPhysicsReconstruction algorithmMedicineMathematicsPerfusionRadiologyPositron emission tomographyOpticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Image truncation in nuclear medicine is a common problem that can lead to artifacts in reconstructed images. We evaluate a modified single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) acquisition and reconstruction method for truncated SPECT, which is guided by nontruncated CT. The method nearly eliminates truncation errors, and is ideal for cardiac imaging. We demonstrate its application on phantom and clinical cardiac SPECT/CT scans. METHODS: Tc-MIBI (2-methoxy isobutyl isonitrile) SPECT/CT scans were acquired on 14 patients, and on an anthropomorphic cardiac chest phantom. The original 34 x 34 cm field-of-view (FOV) projections were truncated to simulate a small 16 x 16 cm FOV acquisition. Data were reconstructed in three ways: (i) nontruncated and standard reconstruction (NTOSEM), which was our gold standard; (ii) truncated and standard reconstruction (TOSEM); and (iii) truncated and a modified reconstruction (TMOSEM). TMOSEM and TOSEM were both compared with NTOSEM by comparing relative count ratios in the heart, looking at the change in perfusion defect size, and comparing pixel correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Compared with NTOSEM, the use of TOSEM for small FOV clinical imaging incurred an average count ratio error greater than 100%, and decreased the calculated defect size by 17.13%. For TMOSEM, the average count ratio error was only 8.9%, and the defect size was only decreased by 0.19% compared with NTOSEM. When we plotted TOSEM against NTOSEM a correlation coefficient of 0.734 was calculated, and when we plotted TMOSEM against NTOSEM a correlation coefficient of 0.996 was measured. Comparing NTOSEM with TOSEM in the phantom study produced an average count ratio error greater than 100%. TMOSEM produced an error of 4.3% compared with NTOSEM. CONCLUSION: Projection truncation due to small FOV cameras in cardiac SPECT/CT can lead to significant errors. TMOSEM guided by nontruncated CT reconstruction shows promise in reducing these errors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207