| Title |
Reducing the small-heart effect in pediatric gated myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0518-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hiroto Yoneyama, Kenichi Nakajima, Koichi Okuda, Shinro Matsuo, Masahisa Onoguchi, Seigo Kinuya, Lars Edenbrandt |
| Abstract |
We compared two reconstruction algorisms and two cardiac functional evaluation software programs in terms of their accuracy for estimating ejection fraction (EF) of small hearts (SH). The study group consisted of 66 pediatric patients. Data were reconstructed using a filtered back projection (FBP) method without the resolution correction (RC) and an iterative method based on an ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm with the RC. EF was evaluated using two software programs of quantitative gated single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (QGS) and cardioREPO. We compared the EF of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT to echocardiographic measurement (Echo). Forty-eight of 66 patients had an end-systolic volume < 20 mL which was used as the criterion for being included in the SH group, and the SH effect led to an overestimation of EF. While significant differences were observed between Echo (66.9 ± 5.0%) and QGS-FBP without RC (76.9 ± 8.4%, P < .0001), QGS-OSEM with RC (76.6 ± 8.6%, P < .0001), and cardioREPO-FBP without RC (72.1 ± 10.0%, P = .0011), no significant difference was observed between Echo and cardioREPO-OSEM with RC (67.4 ± 6.1%) in SH group. In pediatric gated myocardial perfusion SPECT, the SH effect can be significantly reduced when an OSEM algorithm is used with RC in combination with the specific cardioREPO algorithm. |
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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 12% |
| Engineering | 2 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
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.