ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2017
The Effect of Defective PET Detectors in Clinical Simultaneous [
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of defective positron emission tomography (PET) detectors on clinical PET image quality in simultaneous PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for both time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF reconstructed images. PROCEDURES: A total of six patients with various malignant tumors were included and underwent a 2-deoxy-2-[
resultsWithout TOF, the image artifacts introduced by one defective detector unit already started to degrade the overall image quality. It reduced the confidence and could lead to a change in diagnosis. Simulating three or five defective detector units resulted in more artifacts and further reduced overall image quality and confidence. By including TOF information, the effects were mitigated: Images reconstructed with one defective detector unit had similar scores as the ones without defective units. The average absolute percentage error for one, three, and five defective detector units were respectively 8, 20, and 37 % for the non-TOF cases and only 5, 11, and 19 % for the TOF cases.
conclusionOur study indicates that PET image artifacts due to (simulated) defective detectors are significantly mitigated with the integration of TOF information in simultaneous PET/MR. One defective detector unit introduces, on average, a 5 % absolute percentage error. However, in TOF imaging, even in cases with one or three defective units for head and neck imaging and one defective unit for chest and abdominal imaging, overall image quality, artifact scoring, and reader confidence are not significantly degraded.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27812923What 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.