Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23299698›Full record

ReviewMagma (New York, N.Y.)2013

Does PET/MR in human brain imaging provide optimal co-registration? A critical reflection.

Uwe Pietrzyk, Hans Herzog

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. MR/PET or PET/MRI: does it matter?Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Uwe PietrzykInstitute of Neurosciences and Medicine, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany. u.pietrzyk@fz-juelich.de
Hans Herzog

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of hybrid positron emission/magnetic resonance tomography (PET/MR) in diagnostic clinical imaging was a major step in the evolution of ever-more sophisticated imaging systems combining two strategies formerly regarded as technically incompatible in a single device. The advent of PET/MR opened up many new avenues in clinical and research environments, mainly by providing multi-modality images obtained during a single examination. Ideally, simultaneous data acquisition with hybrid PET/MR should warrant exact image co-registration of all multi-modality image volumes provided by both systems. This assumes that there is negligible mutual electronic, technical and logistical interference on the respective simultaneous measurements. Recently, such hybrid dedicated head and whole-body systems were successfully applied in an increasing number of cases. When employed for brain imaging, PET/MR has the potential to provide high-resolution multi-modality datasets. However, it also demands careful consideration of the multitude of features offered, as well as the limitations. There are open issues that have to be considered, such as the handling of patient motion during extended periods of data acquisition, optimized sampling of derived images to ease the visual interpretation and quantitative evaluation of co-registered images. This paper will briefly summarize the current status of PET/MR within the framework of developments for image co-registration and discuss current limitations and future perspectives.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrain DiseasesHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsRadiopharmaceuticals

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.