Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging

It is generally acknowledged that calibration of the imaging system (be it a SPECT or a PET scanner) is one of the critical components associated with in vivo activity quantification in nuclear medicine. The system calibration is generally performed through the acquisition of a source with a known a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Marco D’Arienzo, Maurice Cox
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2017-01-01
Series:Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9830386
id doaj-8e5175428fa0425d87dbbbf25a678454
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8e5175428fa0425d87dbbbf25a6784542020-11-25T01:08:52ZengHindawi LimitedComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine1748-670X1748-67182017-01-01201710.1155/2017/98303869830386Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative ImagingMarco D’Arienzo0Maurice Cox1ENEA, National Institute of Ionizing Radiation Metrology, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, ItalyNational Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington TW11 0LW, UKIt is generally acknowledged that calibration of the imaging system (be it a SPECT or a PET scanner) is one of the critical components associated with in vivo activity quantification in nuclear medicine. The system calibration is generally performed through the acquisition of a source with a known amount of radioactivity. The decay-corrected calibration factor is the “output” quantity in a measurement model for the process. This quantity is a function of a number of “input” variables, including total counts in the volume of interest (VOI), radionuclide activity concentration, source volume, acquisition duration, radionuclide half-life, and calibration time of the radionuclide. Uncertainties in the input variables propagate through the calculation to the “combined” uncertainty in the output quantity. In the present study, using the general formula given in the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) for aggregating uncertainty components, we derive a practical relation to assess the combined standard uncertainty for the calibration factor of an emission tomography system. At a time of increasing need for accuracy in quantification studies, the proposed approach has the potential to be easily implemented in clinical practice.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9830386
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Marco D’Arienzo
Maurice Cox
spellingShingle Marco D’Arienzo
Maurice Cox
Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
author_facet Marco D’Arienzo
Maurice Cox
author_sort Marco D’Arienzo
title Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging
title_short Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging
title_full Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging
title_fullStr Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging
title_full_unstemmed Uncertainty Analysis in the Calibration of an Emission Tomography System for Quantitative Imaging
title_sort uncertainty analysis in the calibration of an emission tomography system for quantitative imaging
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
issn 1748-670X
1748-6718
publishDate 2017-01-01
description It is generally acknowledged that calibration of the imaging system (be it a SPECT or a PET scanner) is one of the critical components associated with in vivo activity quantification in nuclear medicine. The system calibration is generally performed through the acquisition of a source with a known amount of radioactivity. The decay-corrected calibration factor is the “output” quantity in a measurement model for the process. This quantity is a function of a number of “input” variables, including total counts in the volume of interest (VOI), radionuclide activity concentration, source volume, acquisition duration, radionuclide half-life, and calibration time of the radionuclide. Uncertainties in the input variables propagate through the calculation to the “combined” uncertainty in the output quantity. In the present study, using the general formula given in the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) for aggregating uncertainty components, we derive a practical relation to assess the combined standard uncertainty for the calibration factor of an emission tomography system. At a time of increasing need for accuracy in quantification studies, the proposed approach has the potential to be easily implemented in clinical practice.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/9830386
work_keys_str_mv AT marcodarienzo uncertaintyanalysisinthecalibrationofanemissiontomographysystemforquantitativeimaging
AT mauricecox uncertaintyanalysisinthecalibrationofanemissiontomographysystemforquantitativeimaging
_version_ 1725181112701943808