Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGifford, Howard C.
dc.contributor.authorKing, Michael A.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:08:24.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T15:54:20Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T15:54:20Z
dc.date.issued2007-10-26
dc.date.submitted2020-08-17
dc.identifier.citation<p>Gifford HC, King MA. Impact of Mismatched Detector-Blur Models on Ga SPECT Tumor Detection. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec (1997). 2007;6:4226-4229. doi: 10.1109/NSSMIC.2007.4437050. PMID: 19890463; PMCID: PMC2772205. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/NSSMIC.2007.4437050">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn1095-7863 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1109/NSSMIC.2007.4437050
dc.identifier.pmid19890463
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/29530
dc.description.abstractThe quality of SPECT images suffers from the effects of photon attenuation and scatter, and from distance-dependent collimator blur, and many researchers have shown the benefit of compensating for these degradations in the inverse problem. For this work, we examined how using an incorrect collimator-blur model affects the detection and localization of (67)Ga-avid lymphomas in simulated chest scans. In particular, we considered whether blur-overcompensation can enhance reconstructed images for purposes of localizing tumors. Variations in the correct linear model for medium-energy, parallel-hole collimators were compared by means of LROC studies with human and localizing model observers. Imaging data consisted of Simind projections of the MCAT phantom, and RBI reconstructions were performed. Our results indicate that tumor-detection performance is not improved by using a mismatched RC model. Reconstruction with increased RC requires more iterations, which leads to longer noise correlations. Our results also suggest a substantial observer insensitivity to the accuracy of the RC model.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=19890463&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2772205/
dc.subjectImage reconstruction
dc.subjectSingle photon emission computed tomography
dc.subjectAttenuation
dc.subjectElectromagnetic scattering
dc.subjectParticle scattering
dc.subjectOptical collimators
dc.subjectDegradation
dc.subjectInverse problems
dc.subjectNeoplasms
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectAnalytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment
dc.subjectBioimaging and Biomedical Optics
dc.subjectBiological and Chemical Physics
dc.subjectNuclear
dc.subjectNuclear Engineering
dc.subjectRadiology
dc.titleImpact of Mismatched Detector-Blur Models on Ga SPECT Tumor Detection
dc.typeConference Paper
dc.source.volume6
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/faculty_pubs/1753
dc.identifier.contextkey18961148
html.description.abstract<p>The quality of SPECT images suffers from the effects of photon attenuation and scatter, and from distance-dependent collimator blur, and many researchers have shown the benefit of compensating for these degradations in the inverse problem. For this work, we examined how using an incorrect collimator-blur model affects the detection and localization of (67)Ga-avid lymphomas in simulated chest scans. In particular, we considered whether blur-overcompensation can enhance reconstructed images for purposes of localizing tumors. Variations in the correct linear model for medium-energy, parallel-hole collimators were compared by means of LROC studies with human and localizing model observers. Imaging data consisted of Simind projections of the MCAT phantom, and RBI reconstructions were performed. Our results indicate that tumor-detection performance is not improved by using a mismatched RC model. Reconstruction with increased RC requires more iterations, which leads to longer noise correlations. Our results also suggest a substantial observer insensitivity to the accuracy of the RC model.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathfaculty_pubs/1753
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology
dc.source.pages4226-4229


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record