ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2018
Calibration Software for Quantitative PET/CT Imaging Using Pocket Phantoms.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of protocols with respiratory-gated (4D) motion compensation in PET/CT: open-source package for quantification of phantom image quality.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Understanding the importance of quality control and quality assurance in preclinical PET/CT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Preselection of robust radiomic features does not improve outcome modelling in non-small cell lung cancer based on clinical routine FDG-PET imaging.EJNMMI research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multicenter clinical trials that use positron emission tomography (PET) imaging frequently rely on stable bias in imaging biomarkers to assess drug effectiveness. Many well-documented factors cause variability in PET intensity values. Two of the largest scanner-dependent errors are scanner calibration and reconstructed image resolution variations. For clinical trials, an increase in measurement error significantly increases the number of patient scans needed. We aim to provide a robust quality assurance system using portable PET/computed tomography "pocket" phantoms and automated image analysis algorithms with the goal of reducing PET measurement variability. A set of the "pocket" phantoms was scanned with patients, affixed to the underside of a patient bed. Our software analyzed the obtained images and estimated the image parameters. The analysis consisted of 2 steps, automated phantom detection and estimation of PET image resolution and global bias. Performance of the algorithm was tested under variations in image bias, resolution, noise, and errors in the expected sphere size. A web-based application was implemented to deploy the image analysis pipeline in a cloud-based infrastructure to support multicenter data acquisition, under Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model. The automated detection algorithm localized the phantom reliably. Simulation results showed stable behavior when image properties and input parameters were varied. The PET "pocket" phantom has the potential to reduce and/or check for standardized uptake value measurement errors.
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.