It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Gating of positron emission tomography images has been shown to reduce the motion effects, especially when imaging small targets, such as coronary plaques. However, the selection of optimal number of gates for gating remains a challenge. Selecting too high number of gates results in a loss of signal-to-noise ratio, while too low number of gates does remove only part of the motion. Here, we introduce a respiratory-cardiac motion model to determine the optimal number of respiratory and cardiac gates. We evaluate the model using a realistic heart phantom and data from 12 cardiac patients (47–77 years, 64.5 on average). To demonstrate the benefits of our model, we compared it with an existing respiratory model. Based on our study, the optimal number of gates was determined to be five respiratory and four cardiac gates in the phantom and patient studies. In the phantom study, the diameter of the most active hot spot was reduced by 24% in the dual gated images compared to non-gated images. In the patient study, the thickness of myocardium wall was reduced on average by 21%. In conclusion, the motion model can be used for estimating the optimal number of respiratory and cardiac gates for dual gating.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Turku, Turku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.1374.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 1371)
2 Turku University Hospital, Division of Medical Imaging, Department of Medical Physics, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.410552.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0628 215X); Turku University Hospital, Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.410552.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0628 215X)
3 University College London, London, UK (GRID:grid.83440.3b) (ISNI:0000000121901201); Hammersmith Imanet Ltd, London, UK (GRID:grid.83440.3b)
4 University of Turku, Department of Future Technologies, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.1374.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 1371)
5 Turku University Hospital, Division of Medical Imaging, Department of Medical Physics, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.410552.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0628 215X); University of Turku, Institute of Biomedicine, Turku, Finland (GRID:grid.1374.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2097 1371)