Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Compared Performance of High-Sensitivity Cameras Dedicated to Myocardial Perfusion SPECT: A Comprehensive Analysis of Phantom and Human Images

Open access
Imbert, Laetitia, Poussier, Sylvain, Franken, Philippe R., Songy, Bernard, Verger, Antoine, Morel, Olivier, Wolf, Didier, Noel, Alain, Karcher, Gilles, Marie, Pierre-Yves·2012·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Differences in the performance of cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras or collimation systems that have recently been commercialized for myocardial SPECT remain unclear. In the present study, the performance of 3 of these systems was compared by a comprehensive analysis of phantom and human SPECT images. METHODS: We evaluated the Discovery NM 530c and DSPECT CZT cameras, as well as the Symbia Anger camera equipped with an astigmatic (IQ x SPECT) or parallel-hole (conventional SPECT) collimator. Physical performance was compared on reconstructed SPECT images from a phantom and from comparable groups of healthy subjects. RESULTS: Classifications were as follows, in order of performance. For count sensitivity on cardiac phantom images (counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1)), DSPECT had a sensitivity of 850; Discovery NM 530c, 460; IQ x SPECT, 390; and conventional SPECT, 130. This classification was similar to that of myocardial counts normalized to injected activities from human images (respective mean values, in counts x s(-1) x MBq(-1): 11.4 ± 2.6, 5.6 ± 1.4, 2.7 ± 0.7, and 0.6 ± 0.1). For central spatial resolution: Discovery NM 530c was 6.7 mm; DSPECT, 8.6 mm; IQ x SPECT, 15.0 mm; and conventional SPECT, 15.3 mm, also in accordance with the analysis of the sharpness of myocardial contours on human images (in cm(-1): 1.02 ± 0.17, 0.92 ± 0.11, 0.64 ± 0.12, and 0.65 ± 0.06, respectively). For contrast-to-noise ratio on the phantom: Discovery NM 530c had a ratio of 4.6; DSPECT, 4.1; IQ x SPECT, 3.9; and conventional SPECT, 3.5, similar to ratios documented on human images (5.2 ± 1.0, 4.5 ± 0.5, 3.9 ± 0.6, and 3.4 ± 0.3, respectively). CONCLUSION: The performance of CZT cameras is dramatically higher than that of Anger cameras, even for human SPECT images. However, CZT cameras differ in that spatial resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio are better with the Discovery NM 530c, whereas count sensitivity is markedly higher with the DSPECT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.112.107417

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Imbert, L., Poussier, S., Franken, P. R., Songy, B., Verger, A., Morel, O., Wolf, D., Noel, A., Karcher, G., & Marie, P.-Y.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2012-11-08
Volume
53
Issue
12
Pages
1897-1903
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2107892208
Cited by
267
References
0
FWCI
14.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Compared Performance of High-Sensitivity Cameras Dedicated to Myocardial Perfusion SPECT: A Comprehensive Analysis of Phantom and Human Images. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.112.107417
The paper
Imbert, L., Poussier, S., Franken, P. R., Songy, B., Verger, A., Morel, O., Wolf, D., Noel, A., Karcher, G., & Marie, P.-Y. (2012). Compared Performance of High-Sensitivity Cameras Dedicated to Myocardial Perfusion SPECT: A Comprehensive Analysis of Phantom and Human Images. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.107417

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.