Copyright © 2018 Carvalho, Felicio, Santos, Goncalves and Domingues. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

/pdf/application-of-light-scattering-techniques-to-nanoparticle-1o9lvgl9ox.pdf

Application of Light Scattering Techniques to Nanoparticle Characterization and Development

The accuracy of absorbed dose calculations in personalized internal radionuclide therapy is directly related to the accuracy of the activity (or activity concentration) estimates obtained at each of the imaging time points. MIRD Pamphlet no. 23 presented a general overview of methods that are required for quantitative SPECT imaging. The present document is next in a series of isotope-specific guidelines and recommendations that follow the general information that was provided in MIRD 23. This paper focuses on (177)Lu (lutetium) and its application in radiopharmaceutical therapy.

https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/jnumed/57/1/151.full.pdf

MIRD Pamphlet No. 26: Joint EANM/MIRD Guidelines for Quantitative 177Lu SPECT applied for Dosimetry of Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.

Rapidly growing interest in using nanoparticles (NPs) for biomedical applications has increased concerns about their safety and toxicity. In comparison with bulk materials, NPs are more chemically active and toxic due to the greater surface area and small size. Understanding the NPs’ mechanism of toxicity, together with the factors influencing their behavior in biological environments, can help researchers to design NPs with reduced side effects and improved performance. After overviewing the classification and properties of NPs, this review article discusses their biomedical applications in molecular imaging and cell therapy, gene transfer, tissue engineering, targeted drug delivery, Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, cancer treatment, wound healing, and anti-bacterial applications. There are different mechanisms of toxicity of NPs, and their toxicity and behaviors depend on various factors, which are elaborated on in this article. More specifically, the mechanism of toxicity and their interactions with living components are discussed by considering the impact of different physiochemical parameters such as size, shape, structure, agglomeration state, surface charge, wettability, dose, and substance type. The toxicity of polymeric, silica-based, carbon-based, and metallic-based NPs (including plasmonic alloy NPs) have been considered separately. 

/pdf/structural-parameters-of-nanoparticles-affecting-their-1gc7ogbu.pdf

Structural parameters of nanoparticles affecting their toxicity for biomedical applications: a review

PET: Molecular Imaging and Its Biological Applications.

Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. Main results We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre‐prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre‐pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two‐thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy‐nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre‐pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent‐phase infection) and specific (pre‐pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike‐protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent‐phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low‐prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID‐19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post‐symptom onset or post‐positive PCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Authors' conclusions Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular‐ or antigen‐based tests have failed to detect the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero‐epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination‐induced antibodies is uncertain. 

/pdf/antibody-tests-for-identification-of-current-and-past-12g43ag9.pdf

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

The increased use of ionization radiation for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, the rapid advances in computed tomography as well as the high radiation doses delivered by interventional procedures have raised serious safety and health concerns for both patients and medical staff and have necessitated the establishment of a radiation protection culture (RPC) in every Radiology Department. RPC is a newly introduced concept. The term culture describes the combination of attitudes, beliefs, practices and rules among the professionals, staff and patients regarding to radiation protection. Most of the time, the challenge is to improve rather than to build a RPC. The establishment of a RPC requires continuing education of the staff and professional, effective communication among stakeholders of all levels and implementation of quality assurance programs. The RPC creation is being driven from the highest level. Leadership, professionals and associate societies are recognized to play a vital role in the embedding and promotion of RPC in a Medical Unit. The establishment of a RPC enables the reduction of the radiation dose, enhances radiation risk awareness, minimizes unsafe practices, and improves the quality of a radiation protection program. The purpose of this review paper is to describe the role and highlight the importance of establishing a strong RPC in Radiology Departments with an emphasis on promoting RPC in the Interventional Radiology environment.

Importance of establishing radiation protection culture in Radiology Department.

Objective:The aim of this study is to examine the effect of iDose4 hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm (Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH) on radiation dose and image quality in chest–abdomen–pelvis (CAP) CT scanning of adult patients.Methods:CAP CT examinations were performed on 99 patients with the use of the “old standard” protocol performing filtered back projection reconstruction algorithm (FBP protocol) and on 84 patients with the use of iDose4 protocol on a 64-multidetector CT. Patients were subdivided into three weight groups (Group 1, 41–60 kg; Group 2, 61–90 kg; and Group 3, >90 kg). Volume CT dose index and dose length product (DLP) were recorded, while effective dose was calculated from DLP measurements. Objective image noise, signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Two radiologists reviewed images to evaluate image quality.Results:Compared with the FBP protocol, there was an overall 46.5% significant decrease in effective dose with the use of iDose4 protocol.C...

/pdf/using-idose4-iterative-reconstruction-algorithm-in-adults-1zmfr577a0.pdf

Using "iDose4" iterative reconstruction algorithm in adults' chest-abdomen-pelvis CT examinations: effect on image quality in relation to patient radiation exposure.

Radionuclides Used in Nuclear Medicine Therapy – From Production to Dosimetry

Nuclear cardiac imaging is a noninvasive, sensitive method providing information on cardiac structure and physiology. Single photon emission tomography (SPECT) evaluates myocardial perfusion, viability, and function and is widely used in clinical routine. The quality of the tomographic image is a key for accurate diagnosis. Image filtering, a mathematical processing, compensates for loss of detail in an image while reducing image noise, and it can improve the image resolution and limit the degradation of the image. SPECT images are then reconstructed, either by filter back projection (FBP) analytical technique or iteratively, by algebraic methods. The aim of this study is to review filters in cardiac 2D, 3D, and 4D SPECT applications and how these affect the image quality mirroring the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT images. Several filters, including the Hanning, Butterworth, and Parzen filters, were evaluated in combination with the two reconstruction methods as well as with a specified MatLab program. Results showed that for both 3D and 4D cardiac SPECT the Butterworth filter, for different critical frequencies and orders, produced the best results. Between the two reconstruction methods, the iterative one might be more appropriate for cardiac SPECT, since it improves lesion detectability due to the significant improvement of image contrast.

/pdf/filters-in-2d-and-3d-cardiac-spect-image-processing-19upoppbe3.pdf

Filters in 2D and 3D Cardiac SPECT Image Processing

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of iDose(4) iterative reconstruction algorithm on radiation dose and imaging quality at chest-abdomen-pelvis (CAP) CT examinations Seventeen patients were considered; all patients had a previous CT scan with the standard filter back-projection (FBP) protocol and a follow-up scan with the iDose(4) protocol at the same scanner Image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were objectively calculated Two radiologists evaluated noise, sharpness, contrast, diagnostic confidence and artefacts Radiation exposure quantities were calculated iDose(4) resulted in 46 % dose reduction combined with significantly lower noise and higher SNR and CNR compared with FBP iDose(4) images had significantly lower subjective image noise and enhanced sharpness and contrast Diagnostic confidence was high and image artefacts were minor for both algorithms iDose(4) provides great potential for reducing patient radiation burden while improving imaging quality in CAP CT examinations

Patient radiation exposure and image quality evaluation with the use of iDose4 iterative reconstruction algorithm in chest-abdomen-pelvis CT examinations.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Agapi Ploussi

Author Tools

Chat about Author