ArticlePediatric radiology2016
Software-based PET-MR image coregistration: combined PET-MRI for the rest of us!
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2016. 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.
- A Novel Marker-Based Registration Method for Simultaneous Preclinical PET/MR with a Non-Stationary PET Detector.Research square · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study of PSMA PET/CT and MRI Fusion for Prostate Cancer: Software to Replace PET/MRI Hardware.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Improved Visualization of Lymphomatous Cardiac Involvement with Retrospective PET/MRI Fusion.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2023Article
- PET/CT Fluoroscopy during PET/CT-Guided Interventions: Initial Experience.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2023Article
- DeepAD: A deep learning application for predicting amyloid standardized uptake value ratio through PET for Alzheimer's prognosis.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Prognostic Value of Hybrid PET/MR Imaging in Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- A Baboon Brain Atlas for Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography Image Analysis.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2021Article
- How PET/MR Can Add Value For Children With Cancer.Current radiology reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the introduction of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI), a new imaging option to acquire multimodality images with complementary anatomical and functional information has become available. Compared with hybrid PET/computed tomography (CT), hybrid PET/MRI is capable of providing superior anatomical detail while removing the radiation exposure associated with CT. The early adoption of hybrid PET/MRI, however, has been limited.
objectiveTo provide a viable alternative to the hybrid PET/MRI hardware by validating a software-based solution for PET-MR image coregistration. MATERIALS AND
methodsA fully automated, graphics processing unit-accelerated 3-D deformable image registration technique was used to align PET (acquired as PET/CT) and MR image pairs of 17 patients (age range: 10 months-21 years, mean: 10 years) who underwent PET/CT and body MRI (chest, abdomen or pelvis), which were performed within a 28-day (mean: 10.5 days) interval. MRI data for most of these cases included single-station post-contrast axial T1-weighted images. Following registration, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) values observed in coregistered PET (cPET) and the original PET were compared for 82 volumes of interest. In addition, we calculated the target registration error as a measure of the quality of image coregistration, and evaluated the algorithm's performance in the context of interexpert variability.
resultsThe coregistration execution time averaged 97±45 s. The overall relative SUVmax difference was 7% between cPET-MRI and PET/CT. The average target registration error was 10.7±6.6 mm, which compared favorably with the typical voxel size (diagonal distance) of 8.0 mm (typical resolution: 0.66 mm × 0.66 mm × 8 mm) for MRI and 6.1 mm (typical resolution: 3.65 mm × 3.65 mm × 3.27 mm) for PET. The variability in landmark identification did not show statistically significant differences between the algorithm and a typical expert.
conclusionWe have presented a software-based solution that achieves the many benefits of hybrid PET/MRI scanners without actually needing one. The method proved to be accurate and potentially clinically useful.
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.