ArticlePhysics in medicine and biology2015
Evaluation of bias and variance in low-count OSEM list mode reconstruction.
Article in Physics in medicine and biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- One-tenth-activity total-body positron emission tomography versus full-activity imaging in patients with a complex of hepatic malignant tumors: a retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- What validation tests can be done by the clinical medical physicist while waiting for the standardization of quantitative SPECT/CT imaging?EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Quantitative accuracy in total-body imaging using the uEXPLORER PET/CT scanner.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021Article
- Validation of FDG-PET datasets of normal controls for the extraction of SPM-based brain metabolism maps.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Ultra-low-activity total-body dynamic PET imaging allows equal performance to full-activity PET imaging for investigating kinetic metrics ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Performance evaluation of the Q.Clear reconstruction framework versus conventional reconstruction algorithms for quantitative brain PET-MR studies.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Non-local mean denoising using multiple PET reconstructions.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Human adult and adolescent biodistribution and dosimetry of the synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A radioligandEJNMMI research · 2020Article
- Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinicalEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Mapping the landscape of human dopamine D2/3 receptors with [Brain structure & function · 2019Article
- Latent-Profile Analysis Reveals Behavioral and Brain Correlates of Dopamine-Cognition Associations.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2018Article
- Cardiac-gated parametric images fromMedical physics · 2018Article
- Measured PET Data Characterization with the Negative Binomial Distribution Model.Journal of medical and biological engineering · 2017Article
- Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance hybrid scanner imaging of cerebral blood flow using (15)O-water positron emission tomography and arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging in newborn piglets.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Statistical algorithms have been widely used in PET image reconstruction. The maximum likelihood expectation maximization reconstruction has been shown to produce bias in applications where images are reconstructed from a relatively small number of counts. In this study, image bias and variability in low-count OSEM reconstruction are investigated on images reconstructed with MOLAR (motion-compensation OSEM list-mode algorithm for resolution-recovery reconstruction) platform. A human brain ([(11)C]AFM) and a NEMA phantom are used in the simulation and real experiments respectively, for the HRRT and Biograph mCT. Image reconstructions were repeated with different combinations of subsets and iterations. Regions of interest were defined on low-activity and high-activity regions to evaluate the bias and noise at matched effective iteration numbers (iterations × subsets). Minimal negative biases and no positive biases were found at moderate count levels and less than 5% negative bias was found using extremely low levels of counts (0.2 M NEC). At any given count level, other factors, such as subset numbers and frame-based scatter correction may introduce small biases (1-5%) in the reconstructed images. The observed bias was substantially lower than that reported in the literature, perhaps due to the use of point spread function and/or other implementation methods in MOLAR.
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.