ArticleEJNMMI physics2016
Quantitative comparison of PET performance-Siemens Biograph mCT and mMR.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection and quantification of small and low-uptake lesions for differentiated thyroid carcinoma using non-time-of-flight iodine-124 PET/MRI.Medical physics · 2025Article
- The brain's "dark energy" puzzle: How strongly is glucose metabolism linked to resting-state brain activity?Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2024Article
- Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Validation of image-derived input function using a long axial field of view PET/CT scanner for two different tracers.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- An update on the use of image-derived input functions for human PET studies: new hopes or old illusions?EJNMMI research · 2023Review
- A proper protocol for routineEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Same-day comparative protocol PET/CT-PET/MRI [Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Feasibility of Dedicated Breast Positron Emission Tomography Image Denoising Using a Residual Neural Network.Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2023Article
- Iterative reconstruction incorporating background correction improves quantification of [Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Characterization of point-spread function specification error on Geometric Transfer Matrix partial volume correction in [EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Optical Simulation and Experimental Assessment with Time-Walk Correction of TOF-PET Detectors with Multi-Ended Readouts.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Accuracy of 18-F Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomographic/Computed Tomographic Imaging in Primary Staging of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- A data-driven respiratory motion estimation approach for PET based on time-of-flight weighted positron emission particle tracking.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Assessment of Image Quality and Lesion Detectability With Digital PET/CT System.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of Correction Techniques for the Spill in Effect in Emission Tomography.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2020Article
- Double-strand breaks in lymphocyte DNA of humans exposed to [EJNMMI research · 2020Article
- Quantitative Rodent Brain Receptor Imaging.Molecular imaging and biology · 2020Review
- Comparison of the Biograph Vision and Biograph mCT for quantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems.EJNMMI physics · 2020Article
- NEMA Performance Evaluation of CareMiBrain dedicated brain PET and Comparison with the whole-body and dedicated brain PET systems.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated clinical whole-body PET/MR systems were introduced in 2010. In order to bring this technology into clinical usage, it is of great importance to compare the performance with the well-established PET/CT. The aim of this study was to evaluate PET performance, with focus on image quality, on Siemens Biograph mMR (PET/MR) and Siemens Biograph mCT (PET/CT).
methodsA direct quantitative comparison of the performance characteristics between the mMR and mCT system was performed according to National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU 2-2007 protocol. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, count rate and image quality were evaluated. The evaluation was supplemented with additional standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements.
resultsThe spatial resolution was similar for the two systems. Average sensitivity was higher for the mMR (13.3 kcps/MBq) compared to the mCT system (10.0 kcps/MBq). Peak noise equivalent count rate (NECR) was slightly higher for the mMR (196 kcps @ 24.4 kBq/mL) compared to the mCT (186 kcps @ 30.1 kBq/mL). Scatter fractions in the clinical activity concentration range yielded lower values for the mCT (34.9 %) compared to those for the mMR (37.0 %). Best image quality of the systems resulted in approximately the same mean hot sphere contrast and a difference of 19 percentage points (pp) in mean cold contrast, in favour of the mCT. In general, point spread function (PSF) increased hot contrast and time of flight (TOF) increased both hot and cold contrast. Highest hot contrast for the smallest sphere (10 mm) was achieved with the combination of TOF and PSF on the mCT. Lung residual error was higher for the mMR (22 %) than that for the mCT (17 %), with no effect of PSF. With TOF, lung residual error was reduced to 8 % (mCT). SUV was accurate for both systems, but PSF caused overestimations for the 13-, 17- and 22-mm spheres.
conclusionsBoth systems proved good performance characteristics, and the PET image quality of the mMR was close to that of the mCT. Differences between the systems were mainly due to the TOF possibility on the mCT, which resulted in an overall better image quality, especially for the most challenging settings with higher background activity and small uptake volumes.
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.