We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of Resolution Recovery for Each Collimator in Brain Perfusion Image.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to verify the resolution recovery for each collimator in the brain perfusion image.
METHOD: To verify the effect of the resolution recovery for each collimator, we evaluated via the three-dimensional brain phantom (phantom) and the normal brain perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) data. These data were reconstructed using the three-dimensional ordered subset expectation maximization method (3D-OSEM) (Evolution for bone(TM)) that was performed with scatter correction, attenuation correction, and resolution recovery (RR). The performance of resolution recovery was evaluated in the two collimator systems (ELEGP and MEGP) reconstruction condition via the contrast value, mean counts, normalized mean square error (NMSE), and regional brain activity.
RESULT: In the "with resolution recovery (+RR)", the NMSE indicated minimum value with SI (subset×iteration) = 100, cut-off frequency (Fc) = 0.50 cycles/cm. The contrast value in the "+RR" increased 20% for the cortical region and decreased 28% and 6% at ELEGP collimator and MEGP collimator for the central region, as compared to the "without resolution recovery (-RR)". In the phantom study, the error of the brain activity using MEGP collimator at the temporal lobe and sub-lobar decreased 15%, compared with ELEGP collimator in the + RR. In the clinical study, the error of the regional brain activity using MEGP collimator in the "+RR" increased from 3% to 8%, compared with "-RR".
DISCUSSION: The accurate resolution recovery was obtained at SI = 100 and Fc = 0.50 cycles/cm. The contrast value and regional brain activity at the central region decreased due to incomplete resolution recovery by use of ELEGP collimator.
METHOD: To verify the effect of the resolution recovery for each collimator, we evaluated via the three-dimensional brain phantom (phantom) and the normal brain perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) data. These data were reconstructed using the three-dimensional ordered subset expectation maximization method (3D-OSEM) (Evolution for bone(TM)) that was performed with scatter correction, attenuation correction, and resolution recovery (RR). The performance of resolution recovery was evaluated in the two collimator systems (ELEGP and MEGP) reconstruction condition via the contrast value, mean counts, normalized mean square error (NMSE), and regional brain activity.
RESULT: In the "with resolution recovery (+RR)", the NMSE indicated minimum value with SI (subset×iteration) = 100, cut-off frequency (Fc) = 0.50 cycles/cm. The contrast value in the "+RR" increased 20% for the cortical region and decreased 28% and 6% at ELEGP collimator and MEGP collimator for the central region, as compared to the "without resolution recovery (-RR)". In the phantom study, the error of the brain activity using MEGP collimator at the temporal lobe and sub-lobar decreased 15%, compared with ELEGP collimator in the + RR. In the clinical study, the error of the regional brain activity using MEGP collimator in the "+RR" increased from 3% to 8%, compared with "-RR".
DISCUSSION: The accurate resolution recovery was obtained at SI = 100 and Fc = 0.50 cycles/cm. The contrast value and regional brain activity at the central region decreased due to incomplete resolution recovery by use of ELEGP collimator.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app