MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012747988 · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-0275-6

Comprehensive SPECT/CT system characterization and calibration for 177Lu quantitative SPECT (QSPECT) with dead-time correction

2020· article· en· W3012747988 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Frezza, Corentin Desport, Carlos Uribe, Wei Zhao, A. Ćeller, Philippe Després, Jean‐Mathieu Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de QuébecUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéSiemens HealthineersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité Laval
KeywordsCalibrationNuclear medicineComputer scienceMedical physicsMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Personalization of 177Lu-based radionuclide therapy requires implementation of dosimetry methods that are both accurate and practical enough for routine clinical use. Quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (QSPECT/CT) is the preferred scanning modality to achieve this and necessitates characterizing the response of the camera, and calibrating it, over the full range of therapeutic activities and system capacity. Various methods to determine the camera calibration factor (CF) and the deadtime constant (τ) were investigated, with the aim to design a simple and robust protocol for quantitative 177Lu imaging. Methods The SPECT/CT camera was equipped with a medium energy collimator. Multiple phantoms were used to reproduce various attenuation conditions: rod sources in air or water-equivalent media, as well as a Jaszczak phantom with inserts. Planar and tomographic images of a wide range of activities were acquired, with multiple energy windows for scatter correction (double or triple energy window technique) as well as count rate monitoring over a large spectrum of energy. Dead time was modelled using the paralysable model. CF and τ were deduced by curve fitting either separately in two steps (CF determined first using a subset of low-activity acquisitions, then τ determined using the full range of activity) or at once (both CF and τ determined using the full range of activity). Total or segmented activity in the SPECT field of view was computed. Finally, these methods were compared in terms of accuracy to recover the known activity, in particular when planar-derived parameters were applied to the SPECT data. Results The SPECT camera was shown to operate as expected on a finite count rate range (up to ~ 350 kcps over the entire energy spectrum). CF and τ from planar (sources in air) and SPECT segmented Jaszczak data yielded a very good agreement (CF < 1% and τ < 3%). Determining CF and τ from a single curve fit made dead-time-corrected images less prone to overestimating recovered activity. Using triple-energy window scatter correction while acquiring one or more additional energy window(s) to enable wide-spectrum count rate monitoring (i.e. ranging 55–250 or 18–680 keV) yielded the most consistent results across the various geometries. The final, planar-derived calibration parameters for our system were a CF of 9.36 ± 0.01 cps/MBq and a τ of 0.550 ± 0.003 μs. Using the latter, the activity in a Jaszczak phantom could be quantified by QSPECT with an accuracy of 0.02 ± 1.10%. Conclusions Serial planar acquisitions of sources in air using an activity range covering the full operational capacity of the SPECT/CT system, with multiple energy windows for wide-spectrum count rate monitoring, and followed by simultaneous determination of CF and τ using a single equation derived from the paralysable model, constitutes a practical method to enable accurate dead-time-corrected QSPECT imaging in a post-177Lu radionuclide therapy setting.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207