Literature DB >> 6971301

Quantitation in positron emission computed tomography: 3 Effect of sampling.

S C Huang, E J Hoffman, M E Phelps, D E Kuhl.   

Abstract

Effect of insufficient transverse sampling on quantitative positron emission computed tomography (ECT) was investigated with computer simulation and measurements on parallel bar and line source phantoms. Aliasing artifacts were observed and were found to be dependent on both the configuration and the location of imaged objects. Images of parallel bar phantoms were found to have aliasing artifacts similar in characteristics to aliasing on one-dimensional signals. In line source images, aliasing effects were manifested as variations in amplitude and full width at half maximum resolution (FWHM) for sources at even slightly different locations in the field of view. It was found that employing sampling distances smaller than one-third of the intrinsic detector FWHM eliminated noticeable aliasing artifacts. Image resolution was also found to be affected by the sampling distance. For a sampling distance equal to one-half of the intrinsic detector FWHM, the imaging FWHM is about 10% worse than the intrinsic FWHM. Selection of sampling distance in noisy environments is discussed. Parallel bar phantoms are shown to have advantages over line sources in the evaluation of sampling and resolution performance of ECT scanners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 6971301     DOI: 10.1097/00004728-198012000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  8 in total

1.  Imaging studies for evaluating impact of position sampling techniques in PET scanners.

Authors:  Suleman Surti; Matthew E Werner; Joel S Karp
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2010-10-01       Impact factor: 1.679

Review 2.  History and future technical innovation in positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Terry Jones; David Townsend
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-03-31

3.  On estimating the loss of quantification in PET due to finite detector resolution.

Authors:  A N Bice; D F Wong; H N Wagner
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1987

Review 4.  Positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Y L Yamamoto; C J Thompson; M Diksic; E Meyer; W H Feindel
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 3.042

5.  PET imaging for the quantification of biologically heterogeneous tumours: measuring the effect of relative position on image-based quantification of dose-painting targets.

Authors:  Keisha C McCall; David L Barbee; Michael W Kissick; Robert Jeraj
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Improved spatial resolution in PET scanners using sampling techniques.

Authors:  Suleman Surti; Ryan Scheuermann; Matthew E Werner; Joel S Karp
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nucl Sci       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 1.679

Review 7.  What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Thomas Beyer; Luc Bidaut; John Dickson; Marc Kachelriess; Fabian Kiessling; Rainer Leitgeb; Jingfei Ma; Lalith Kumar Shiyam Sundar; Benjamin Theek; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 3.909

8.  Phantom-based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system.

Authors:  Pedro Fragoso Costa; Walter Jentzen; Alissa Brahmer; Ilektra-Antonia Mavroeidi; Fadi Zarrad; Lale Umutlu; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christoph Rischpler; Ken Herrmann; Maurizio Conti; Robert Seifert; Miriam Sraieb; Manuel Weber; David Kersting
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 4.638

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.