ArticleEJNMMI physics2016
Cross-calibration of the Siemens mMR: easily acquired accurate PET phantom measurements, long-term stability and reproducibility.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Malignancy Detection Rates of [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Trial
- Circulating Tumor DNA and [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lesion Quantification Accuracy of DigitalJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Joint EANM/SIOPE/RAPNO practice guidelines/SNMMI procedure standards for imaging of paediatric gliomas using PET with radiolabelled amino acids and [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Standard MRI-based attenuation correction for PET/MRI phantoms: a novel concept using MRI-visible polymer.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe present a quick and easy method to perform quantitatively accurate PET scans of typical water-filled PET plastic shell phantoms on the Siemens Biograph mMR PET/MR system. We perform regular cross-calibrations (Xcal) of our PET systems, including the PET/MR, using a Siemens mCT water phantom. LONG-TERM STABILITY: The mMR calibration stability was evaluated over a 3-year period where 54 cross-calibrations were acquired, showing that the mMR on average underestimated the concentration by 16 %, consistently due to the use of MR-based μ-maps. The mMR produced the narrowest calibration ratio range with the lowest standard deviation, implying it is the most stable of the six systems in the study over a 3-year period. MMR ACCURACY WITH PREDEFINED μ-MAPS: With the latest mMR software version, VB20P, it is possible to utilize predefined phantom μ-maps. We evaluated both the system-integrated, predefined μ-map of the long mMR water phantom and our own user-defined CT-based μ-map of the mCT water phantom, which is used for cross-calibration. For seven scans, which were reconstructed with correctly segmented μ-maps, the mMR produced cross-calibration ratios of 1.00-1.02, well within the acceptance range [0.95-1.05], showing high accuracy.
conclusionsThe mMR is the most stable PET system in this study, and the mean underestimation is no longer an issue with the easily accessible μ-map, which resulted in correct cross-calibration ratios in all seven tests. We will share the user-defined μ-map of the mCT phantom and the protocol with interested mMR users.
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.