• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.54-60
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Nuclear medicine manufacturers provide various softwares which shorten imaging time using their own image processing techniques such as UlatraSPECT, ASTONISH, Flash3D, Evolution, and nSPEED. Seoul National University Hospital has introduced softwares from Siemens and Philips, but it was still hard to understand algorithm difference between those two softwares. Thus, the purpose of this study was to figure out the difference of two softwares in planar images and research the possibility of application to images produced with high energy isotopes. Materials and Methods: First, a phantom study was performed to understand the difference of softwares in static studies. Various amounts of count were acquired and the images were analyzed quantitatively after application of PIXON, Siemens and ASTONISH, Philips, respectively. Then, we applied them to some applicable static studies and searched for merits and demerits. And also, they have been applied to images produced with high energy isotopes. Finally, A blind test was conducted by nuclear medicine doctors except phantom images. Results: There was nearly no difference between pre and post processing image with PIXON for FWHM test using capillary source whereas ASTONISH was improved. But, both of standard deviation(SD) and variance were decreased for PIXON while ASTONISH was highly increased. And in background variability comparison test using IEC phantom, PIXON has been decreased over all while ASTONISH has shown to be somewhat increased. Contrast ratio in each spheres has also been increased for both methods. For image scale, window width has been increased for 4~5 times after processing with PIXON while ASTONISH showed nearly no difference. After phantom test analysis, ASTONISH seemed to be applicable for some studies which needs quantitative analysis or high contrast, and PIXON seemed to be applicable for insufficient counts studies or long time studies. Conclusion: Quantitative values used for usual analysis were generally improved after application of the two softwares, however it seems that it's hard to maintain the consistency for all of nuclear medicine studies because result images can not be the same due to the difference of algorithm characteristic rather than the difference of gamma cameras. And also, it's hard to expect high image quality with the time shortening method such as whole body scan. But it will be possible to apply to static studies considering the algorithm characteristic or we can expect a change of image quality through application to high energy isotope images.

• Korean Journal of Remote Sensing
• /
• v.37 no.6_1
• /
• pp.1767-1772
• /
• 2021

Global satellite observation surface albedo data over a long period of time are actively used to monitor changes in the global climate and environment, and their utilization and importance are great. Through the generational shift of geostationary satellites COMS (Communication, Ocean and Meteorological Satellite)/MI (Meteorological Imager sensor) and GK-2A (GEO-KOMPSAT-2A)/AMI (Advanced Meteorological Imager sensor), it is possible to continuously secure surface albedo outputs. However, the surface albedo outputs of COMS/MI and GK-2A/AMI differ between outputs due to Differences in retrieval algorithms. Therefore, in order to expand the retrieval period of the surface albedo of COMS/MI and GK-2A/AMI to secure continuous climate change monitoring linkage, the analysis of the two satellite outputs and errors should be preceded. In this study, error characteristics were analyzed by performing comparative analysis with ground observation data AERONET (Aerosol Robotic Network) and other satellite data GLASS (Global Land Surface Satellite) for the overlapping period of COMS/MI and GK-2A/AMI surface albedo data. As a result of error analysis, it was confirmed that the RMSE of COMS/MI was 0.043, higher than the RMSE of GK-2A/AMI, 0.015. In addition, compared to other satellite (GLASS) data, the RMSE of COMS/MI was 0.029, slightly lower than that of GK-2A/AMI 0.038. When understanding these error characteristics and using COMS/MI and GK-2A/AMI's surface albedo data, it will be possible to actively utilize them for long-term climate change monitoring.