MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2035487748 · doi:10.1118/1.4894978

Sci—Thur PM: Imaging — 05: Calibration of a SPECT/CT camera for quantitative SPECT with <sup>99m</sup>Tc

2014· article· en· W2035487748 on OpenAlexaff
Émilie Gaudin, Jean‐François Montégiani, Jean‐Mathieu Beauregard, Philippe Després

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImaging phantomNuclear medicinePhysicsCalibrationSpect imagingIterative reconstructionSensitivity (control systems)Partial volumeSingle-photon emission computed tomographyCorrection for attenuationGamma cameraPositron emission tomographyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While quantitation is the norm in PET, it is not widely available yet in SPECT. This work's aim was to calibrate a commercially available SPECT/CT system to perform quantitative SPECT. Counting sensitivity, dead‐time (DT) constant and partial volume effect (PVE) of the system were assessed. A dual‐head Siemens SymbiaT6 SPECT/CT camera equipped with low energy high‐resolution collimators was studied. 99mTc was the radioisotope of interest because of its wide usage in nuclear medicine. First, point source acquisitions were performed (activity: 30–990MBq). Further acquisitions were then performed with a uniform Jaszczak phantom filled with water at high activity (25–5000MBq). PVE was studied using 6 hot spheres (diameters: 9.9–31.2 mm) filled with 99mTc (2.8MBq/cc) in the Jaszczak phantom, which was: (1) empty, (2) water‐filled and (3) water‐filled with low activity (0.1MBq/cc). The data was reconstructed with the Siemens's Flash3D iterative algorithm with 4 subsets and 8 iterations, attenuation‐correction (AC) and scatter‐correction (SC). DT modelling was based on the total spectrum counting rate. Sensitivity was assessed using AC‐SC reconstructed SPECT data. Sensitivity and DT for the sources were 99.51±1.46cps/MBq and 0.60±0.04µs. For the phantom, sensitivity and DT were 109.9±2.3cps/MBq and 0.62±0.13µs. The recovery‐coefficient varied from 5% for the 9.9mm, to 80% for the 31.2mm spheres. With our calibration methods, both sensitivity and DT constant of the SPECT camera had little dependence on the object geometry and attenuation. For small objects of known size, recovery‐coefficient can be applied to correct PVE. Clinical quantitative SPECT appears to be possible and has many potential applications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.030

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→