Search for: [Abstract = "group 2\:1,98±0,55\; 2,02±0,56 and 2,26±0,60\; subgroup 3\:3,56±0,64\; 3,59±0,69 and 3,64±0,67 for OSEM\(8,i\)\; OSEM\(16,i\) and OSEM\(32,i\), respectively. Phase 2–The qualitative assessment–group I\: the highest number of lesions was assessed as 1 for OSEM\(8,10\) for both subgroups\-1 and 2 \(44% and 82%, respectively\;p<0,05\). The same percentage of lesions was assessed as 1 for OSEM\(8,14\) and OSEM\(8,18\). The similar trend was observed for the lesions with out\-liver localization, p<0,05\: subgroup 1–35% \(OSEM\(8,10\)\), subgroup 2–89% \(OSEM\(8,10\) and OSEM\(8,14\)\). The quantitative assessment\-Group I\:the mean value of target\/non\-target increased with increasing iterations number– subgroup 1\:2,44\-2,88\; subgroup 2\:2,66\-3,01. The differences in average values of the TCS\/TCB ratio are statistically significant for the number of iterations equal\:subgroup 1–i=10,14,18 \(p<0,05\)\; subgroup 2–i=6,10,14 \(p<0,05\). The similar increasing TCS\/TCB ratio was observed in group II–subgroup 1\:1,99\-2,54\; subgroup 2\:2,54\-2,96. Differences in average values of the TCS\/TCB ratios are statistically significant for the iterations number i=6,10 \(p<0,05\). Phase 3–The qualitative assessment–scatter correction \(SC\) applied to the SPECT images reconstruction did not influence on the qualitative assessment of the lesions in group I. The qualitative assessment differences were observed for the lesions in gro"]

Number of results: 1