| Title |
Compared vulnerabilities to small cardiac motions between different cameras used for myocardial perfusion imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-1175-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julien Salvadori, Yolande Petegnief, Remi Sabbah, Olivier Morel, Hatem Boulahdour, Gilles Karcher, Pierre-Yves Marie, Laetitia Imbert |
| Abstract |
This phantom-based study was aimed to determine whether cardiac CZT-cameras, which provide an enhanced spatial resolution and image contrast compared to Anger cameras, are similarly affected by small cardiac motions. Translations of a left ventricular (LV) insert at half-SPECT acquisitions through six possible orthogonal directions and with 5- or 10-mm amplitude were simulated on the Discovery NM-530c and DSPECT CZT-cameras and on an Anger Symbia T2 camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ.SPECT) or conventional parallel-hole collimator (Conv.SPECT). SPECT images were initially reconstructed as currently recommended for clinical routine. The heterogeneity in recorded activity from the 17 LV segments gradually increased between baseline and motions simulated at 5- and 10-mm amplitudes with all cameras, although being higher for Anger- than CZT-cameras at each step and resulting in a higher mean number of artifactual abnormal segments (at 10-mm amplitude, Conv. 3.7; IQ. 1.8, Discovery: 0.7, DSPECT: 0). However, this vulnerability to motion was markedly (1) decreased for Conv.SPECT reconstructed without the recommended Resolution Recovery algorithm and (2) increased for DSPECT reconstructed without the recommended cardiac model. CZT-cameras and especially the DSPECT appear less vulnerable to small cardiac motions than Anger-cameras although these differences are strongly dependent on reconstruction parameters. |
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% |
| Unknown | 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 60% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 100% |
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 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,304
of 2,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,091
of 451,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#27
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 2,045 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 451,046 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 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.