Skip to main content

News about Scitation

In December 2016 Scitation will launch with a new design, enhanced navigation and a much improved user experience.

To ensure a smooth transition, from today, we are temporarily stopping new account registration and single article purchases. If you already have an account you can continue to use the site as normal.

For help or more information please visit our FAQs.

banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378
1.
1. H. O. Anger, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 29, 27 (1958).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1715998
2.
2. H. O. Anger, Nature 170, 200 (1952).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/170200b0
3.
3. R. D. Badawi, Nuclear Medicine. Physics Education Special Feature: Medical Physics, (IOP Publishing Ltd, 2001). www.iop.org/Journals/PhysEd.
4.
4. S. R. Cherry, J. A. Sorenson and M. E. Phelps, Physics In Nuclear Medicine, (Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003).
5.
5. H. Zaidi, Z Med. Phys. 16, 5 (2006).
6.
6. S. C. Moore, K. Kouris, and I. Cullum, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 19, 138 (1992).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00184130
7.
7. R. Accorsi and S. D. Metzler, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 23, 750 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2004.826951
8.
8. T. Zeniya, et al., Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mod. Imag. 31, 1166 (2004).
9.
9. T. M. Mark, J. Nucl. Med. 48, 661 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.032680
10.
10. M. N. Wernick and J. N. Aarsvold, Emission Tomography: The Fundamentals of SPECT and PET, (San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 2004).
11.
11. G. L. Zeng, Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 25, 97 (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-6111(00)00059-8
12.
12. R. Accorsi, Design of near-field coded aperture cameras for high-resolution medical and industrial gamma-ray imaging, PhD. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT, 2001. Citable URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/8684
13.
13. J. D. Idoine, Pat. Application Pub. No.: US 2008/0230707 A1 (2008).
14.
14. Z. Mu and Y. H. Liu, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 25, 701 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2006.873298
15.
15. Z. Mu, B. Hong, S. Li, and Y. H. Liu, Med. Phys. 36, 1533 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3103490
16.
16. E. E. Fenimore and T. M. Cannon, Appl. Opt. 20, 1858 (1981).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.20.001858
17.
17. O. I. Vassilieva and R. C. Chaney, Appl. Opt. 41, 1454 (2002).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.41.001454
18.
18. R. Accorsi and R. Lanza, Appl. Opt. 40, 4697 (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/AO.40.004697
19.
19. R. Accorsi, F. Gasparini and R. Lanza, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 48, 2411 (2001).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/23.983251
20.
20. M. A. Alnafea, N. M. Wells,Spyrou, and M. Guy, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 573, 122 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2006.11.007
21.
21. D. M. Starfield, D. M. Rubin, and T. Marwala, IFMBE Proceedings 16, 806 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73044-6
22.
22. D. M. Starfield, D. M. Rubin and T. Marwala, NBC Proceedings 20, 590 (2008).
23.
23. R. C. Chaney and O. Vassilieva, Pat US. 6,580,939 (2003).
24.
24. R. C. Lanza, R. Accorsi and F. Gasparini, Pat. US. 6,737,652 (2004).
25.
25. M. A. J. Mariscotti, Pat US. 5,828,723 (1998).
26.
26. C. Wang, and P. Peng, Pat US.7,620,145 B2 (2009).
27.
27. S. G. Strocovsky and D. Otero, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, p. 36303633, doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627445 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627445
28.
28. N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 44, 335 (1949).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2280232
29.
29. J. W. Wallis and T. R. Miller, J. Nucl. Med. Assoc. 31, 1421 (1990).
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378
Loading
/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378
2011-05-24
2016-12-10

Abstract

Images of planar scintigraphy and single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) used in nuclear medicine are often low quality. They usually appear to be blurred and noisy. This problem is due to the low spatial resolution and poor sensitivity of the acquisition technique with the gamma camera (GC). Other techniques, such as coded aperture imaging (CAI) reach higher spatial resolutions than GC. However, CAI is not frequently used for imaging in nuclear medicine, due to the decoding complexity of some images and the difficulty in controlling the noise magnitude. Summing up, the images obtained through GC are low quality and it is still difficult to implement CAI technique. A novel technique, full aperture Imaging (FAI), also uses gamma ray-encoding to obtain images, but the coding system and the method of images reconstruction are simpler than those used in CAI. In addition, FAI also reaches higher spatial resolution than GC. In this work, the principles of FAI technique and the method of images reconstruction are explained in detail. The FAI technique is tested by means of Monte Carlo simulations with filiform and spherical sources. Spatial resolution tests of GC versus FAI were performed using two different source-detector distances. First, simulations were made without interposing any material between the sources and the detector. Then, other more realistic simulations were made. In these, the sources were placed in the centre of a rectangular prismatic region, filled with water. A rigorous comparison was made between GC and FAI images of the linear filiform sources, by means of two methods: mean fluence profile graphs and correlation tests. Finally, three-dimensional capacity of FAI was tested with two spherical sources. The results show that FAI technique has greater sensitivity (>100 times) and greater spatial resolution (>2.6 times) than that of GC with LEHR collimator, in both cases, with and without attenuating material and long and short-distance configurations. The FAI decoding algorithm reconstructs simultaneously four different projections which are located in separate image fields on the detector plane, while GC produces only one projection per acquisition. Simulations have allowed comparison of both techniques under ideal identical conditions. Our results show it is possible to apply an extremely simple encoded imaging technique, and get three-dimensional radioactivity information for simplistic geometry sources. The results are promising enough to evaluate the possibility of future research with more complex sources typical of nuclear medicine imaging.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aip/journal/adva/1/2/1.3596378.html;jsessionid=vOJcV0Pc5H9HxBhUMXPWWP_w.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aip/journal/adva
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=aipadvances.aip.org/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/adva/1/2/10.1063/1.3596378'
Right1,Right2,Right3,