| Title |
Taking the perfect nuclear image: Quality control, acquisition, and processing techniques for cardiac SPECT, PET, and hybrid imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-013-9760-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James A. Case, Timothy M. Bateman |
| Abstract |
Nuclear Cardiology for the past 40 years has distinguished itself in its ability to non-invasively assess regional myocardial blood flow and identify obstructive coronary disease. This has led to advances in managing the diagnosis, risk stratification, and prognostic assessment of cardiac patients. These advances have all been predicated on the collection of high quality nuclear image data. National and international professional societies have established guidelines for nuclear laboratories to maintain high quality nuclear cardiology services. In addition, laboratory accreditation has further advanced the goal of the establishing high quality standards for the provision of nuclear cardiology services. This article summarizes the principles of nuclear cardiology single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and techniques for maintaining quality: from the calibration of imaging equipment to post processing techniques. It also will explore the quality considerations of newer technologies such as cadmium zinc telleride (CZT)-based SPECT systems and absolute blood flow measurement techniques using PET. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 52 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 24% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 24% |
| Unknown | 4 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 48% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,303
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,948
of 219,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 219,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.