ArticlePloS one2014
Myocardial defect detection using PET-CT: phantom studies.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of the air pollution on health in New York City.Journal of public health research · 2023Review
- Human and model observer performance for lesion detection in breast cone beam CT images with the FDK reconstruction.PloS one · 2018Article
- Comparative analysis of iterative reconstruction algorithms with resolution recovery and time of flight modeling forJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Importance of Defect Detectability in Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Abdominal Lesions.Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It is expected that both noise and activity distribution can have impact on the detectability of a myocardial defect in a cardiac PET study. In this work, we performed phantom studies to investigate the detectability of a defect in the myocardium for different noise levels and activity distributions. We evaluated the performance of three reconstruction schemes: Filtered Back-Projection (FBP), Ordinary Poisson Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization (OP-OSEM), and Point Spread Function corrected OSEM (PSF-OSEM). We used the Channelized Hotelling Observer (CHO) for the task of myocardial defect detection. We found that the detectability of a myocardial defect is almost entirely dependent on the noise level and the contrast between the defect and its surroundings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.