ArticleMedical physics2014
Effect of time-of-flight and point spread function modeling on detectability of myocardial defects in PET.
Article in Medical physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dual-Tracer Parathyroid Imaging Using Joint SPECT Reconstruction.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- The Importance of Time-of-Flight Reconstruction and Point Spread Modeling in the Measurement of Myocardial Blood Flow Parameters.Current cardiology reports · 2021Review
- Procedural recommendations of cardiac PET/CT imaging: standardization in inflammatory-, infective-, infiltrative-, and innervation (4Is)-related cardiovascular diseases: a joint collaboration of the EACVI and the EANM.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Behind Traditional Semi-quantitative Scores of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: An Eye on Niche Parameters.European cardiology · 2019Review
- Time-of-flight in cardiac PET/TC: What do we know and what we should know?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Point-spread function reconstructed PET images of sub-centimeter lesions are not quantitative.EJNMMI physics · 2017Article
- 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
- New PET system permits reliable estimates of myocardial blood flow and flow reserve.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Article
- 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
purposeA study was designed to investigate the impact of time-of-flight (TOF) and point spread function (PSF) modeling on the detectability of myocardial defects.
methodsClinical FDG-PET data were used to generate populations of defect-present and defect-absent images. Defects were incorporated at three contrast levels, and images were reconstructed by ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) iterative methods including ordinary Poisson, alone and with PSF, TOF, and PSF+TOF. Channelized Hotelling observer signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was the surrogate for human observer performance.
resultsFor three iterations, 12 subsets, and no postreconstruction smoothing, TOF improved overall defect detection SNR by 8.6% as compared to its non-TOF counterpart for all the defect contrasts. Due to the slow convergence of PSF reconstruction, PSF yielded 4.4% less SNR than non-PSF. For reconstruction parameters (iteration number and postreconstruction smoothing kernel size) optimizing observer SNR, PSF showed larger improvement for faint defects. The combination of TOF and PSF improved mean detection SNR as compared to non-TOF and non-PSF counterparts by 3.0% and 3.2%, respectively.
conclusionsFor typical reconstruction protocol used in clinical practice, i.e., less than five iterations, TOF improved defect detectability. In contrast, PSF generally yielded less detectability. For large number of iterations, TOF+PSF yields the best observer performance.
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.