ArticleAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2013
Image quality assessment of automatic three-segment MR attenuation correction vs. CT attenuation correction.
Article in American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of virtual dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI on lesion size, BI-RADS scores and reader confidence.European radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Transoral and Transcervical Ultrasonography with MRI for the Diagnostic Work-Up of Oropharynx Tumors: A Protocol for a Multicenter Clinical Trial (SPOTUS).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Fully automated breast segmentation on spiral breast computed tomography images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- A novel read methodology to evaluate the optimal dose ofEJNMMI research · 2021Article
- Impact of PET acquisition durations on image quality and lesion detectability in whole-bodyEJNMMI research · 2017Article
- MR Imaging-Guided Attenuation Correction of PET Data in PET/MR Imaging.PET clinics · 2016Review
- Non-invasive diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases.World journal of radiology · 2015Review
- Qualitative and quantitative performance of ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/MRI versus ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in patients with head and neck cancer.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the usefulness of Positron emission tomography/Magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) images in a clinical setting by assessing the image quality of Positron emission tomography (PET) images using a three-segment MR attenuation correction (MRAC) versus the standard CT attenuation correction (CTAC). We prospectively studied 48 patients who had their clinically scheduled FDG-PET/CT followed by an FDG-PET/MRI. Three nuclear radiologists evaluated the image quality of CTAC vs. MRAC using a Likert scale (five-point scale). A two-sided, paired t-test was performed for comparison purposes. The image quality was further assessed by categorizing it as acceptable (equal to 4 and 5 on the five-point Likert scale) or unacceptable (equal to 1, 2, and 3 on the five-point Likert scale) quality using the McNemar test. When assessing the image quality using the Likert scale, one reader observed a significant difference between CTAC and MRAC (p=0.0015), whereas the other readers did not observe a difference (p=0.8924 and p=0.1880, respectively). When performing the grouping analysis, no significant difference was found between CTAC vs. MRAC for any of the readers (p=0.6137 for reader 1, p=1 for reader 2, and p=0.8137 for reader 3). All three readers more often reported artifacts on the MRAC images than on the CTAC images. There was no clinically significant difference in quality between PET images generated on a PET/MRI system and those from a Positron emission tomography/Computed tomography (PET/CT) system. PET images using the automatic three-segmented MR attenuation method provided diagnostic image quality. However, future research regarding the image quality obtained using different MR attenuation based methods is warranted before PET/MRI can be used clinically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23638340PMC3627525What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.