ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2020
Analysis of partial volume correction on quantification and regional heterogeneity in cardiac PET.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Critical review of partial volume correction methods in PET and SPECT imaging: benefits, pitfalls, challenges, and future outlook.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe partial volume correction (PVC) of cardiac PET datasets using anatomical side information during reconstruction is appealing but not straightforward. Other techniques, which do not make use of additional anatomical information, could be equally effective in improving the reconstructed myocardial activity.
methodsResolution modeling in combination with different noise suppressing priors was evaluated as a means to perform PVC. Anatomical priors based on a high-resolution CT are compared to non-anatomical, edge-preserving priors (relative difference and total variation prior). The study is conducted on ex vivo datasets from ovine hearts. A simulation study additionally clarifies the relationship between prior effectiveness and myocardial wall thickness.
resultsSimple resolution modeling during data reconstruction resulted in over- and underestimation of activity, which hampers the absolute left ventricular quantification when compared to the ground truth. Both the edge-preserving and the anatomy-based PVC techniques improve the absolute quantification, with comparable results (Student t-test, P = .17). The relative tracer distribution was preserved with any reconstruction technique (repeated ANOVA, P = .98).
conclusionsThe use of edge-preserving priors emerged as optimal choice for quantification of tracer uptake in the left ventricular wall of the available datasets. Anatomical priors visually outperformed edge-preserving priors when the thinnest structures were of interest.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28233192What 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.