ArticleEJNMMI physics2021
Evaluation of Iodine-123 and Iodine-131 SPECT activity quantification: a Monte Carlo study.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Twins: Exploring the Radiohybrid Concept with Iodine-123 and Lanthanum-133 for PSMA-Targeted SPECT and PET Imaging.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Accuracy of patient-specific I-131 dosimetry using hybrid whole-body planar-SPECT/CT I-123 and I-131 imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- EANM guidance document: dosimetry for first-in-human studies and early phase clinical trials.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Transarterial Radioembolization: Overview of Radioembolic Devices.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2023Review
- Quantification and dosimetry of small volumes including associated uncertainty estimation.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- DNA Repair Enzyme Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase 1/2 (PARP1/2)-Targeted Nuclear Imaging and Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe quantitative accuracy of Nuclear Medicine images, acquired for both planar and SPECT studies, is influenced by the isotope-collimator combination as well as image corrections incorporated in the iterative reconstruction process. These factors can be investigated and optimised using Monte Carlo simulations. This study aimed to evaluate SPECT quantification accuracy for
methodsSimulated SPECT projection images were reconstructed using the OS-EM iterative algorithm, which was optimised for the number of updates, with appropriate corrections for scatter, attenuation and collimator detector response (CDR), including septal scatter and penetration compensation. An appropriate calibration factor (CF) was determined from four different source geometries (activity-filled: water-filled cylindrical phantom, sphere in water-filled (cold) cylindrical phantom, sphere in air and point-like source), investigated with different volume of interest (VOI) diameters. Recovery curves were constructed from recovery coefficients to correct for partial volume effects (PVEs). The quantitative method was evaluated for spheres in voxel-based digital cylindrical and patient phantoms.
resultsThe optimal number of OS-EM updates was 60 for all isotope-collimator combinations. The CF
conclusionThe study showed that quantification errors of less than 6.0% could be attained, for all isotope-collimator combinations, if corrections for; scatter, attenuation, CDR (including septal scatter and penetration) and PVEs are performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.