| Title |
The high matrix acquisition technique for imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation in fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography with time-of-flight: Phantom study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0510-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masaya Suda, Tomonari Kiriyama, Keiichi Ishihara, Masahisa Onoguchi, Yasuhiro Kobayashi, Minoru Sakurai, Takayuki Shibutani, Shin-Ichiro Kumita |
| Abstract |
Motion artifact and partial volume effect caused underestimation of coronary plaque inflammation. This study evaluated the high matrix acquisition technique using time-of-flight (TOF) positron emission tomography/computed tomography for imaging of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose in small and moving phantoms. All images were reconstructed using a conventional algorithm without TOF (4 × 4 × 4 mm(3) voxel size) and a high matrix algorithm with TOF (2 × 2 × 2 mm(3) voxel size). Microsphere phantoms of 10, 7.9, 6.2, 5.0, and 4.0 mm diameters were acquired in 3-dimensional list-mode for 30 minutes. A heart phantom mimicking cardiac motion consisted of a hot spot simulating a plaque (φ 4 mm, φ 2 mm) on the outside of the left ventricle. In the microsphere and heart phantom study, visual discrimination, maximum activity, and target-to-background ratio using the high matrix algorithm with TOF were better than those using the conventional algorithm without TOF. The high matrix algorithm with TOF improves detection of small targets in phantoms. |
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 | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 30% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 10% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 10% |
| Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,983,785
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,104
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,233
of 349,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#25
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 349,582 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.