Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31069816›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2019

Performance evaluation of the 5-Ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT system using the national electrical manufacturers association NU 2-2012 Standard.

Tinsu Pan, Samuel A Einstein, Srinivas Cheenu Kappadath, Kira S Grogg, Cristina Lois Gomez, Adam M Alessio, William C Hunter, Georges El Fakhri, Paul E Kinahan, Osama R Mawlawi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Performance Evaluation of SmartBrain: A Wearable PET System for Human Brain Imaging.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. An integrated PET/CT simulation framework for virtual imaging trials and quantitative performance evaluation.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Quantitative Measurement of Tau Burden in a Dual-Time-Window Dynamic PET Imaging Protocol with [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Impact of tissue-independent positron range correction on [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  14. Development of Whole-Body TOF-DOI PET Detector Using Dual-Ended Readout Method.IEEE transactions on instrumentation and measurement · 2025
    Article
  15. Monte Carlo methods for medical imaging research.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024
    Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tinsu PanDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Samuel A EinsteinDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Srinivas Cheenu KappadathDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Kira S GroggGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Cristina Lois GomezGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Adam M AlessioDepartment of Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
William C HunterDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Georges El FakhriGordon Center for Medical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Paul E KinahanDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Osama R MawlawiDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

Precision Personalized Proton Therapy through Advanced Imaging TechnologyK07CA193916 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI GROGG, KIRA · 2015 to 2019
$499k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA193916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The GE Discovery MI PET/CT system has a modular digital detector design allowing three, four, or five detector block rings that extend the axial field-of-view (FOV) from 15 to 25 cm in 5 cm increments. This study investigated the performance of the 5-ring system and compared it to 3- and 4-ring systems; the GE Discovery IQ system that uses conventional photomultiplier tubes; and the GE Signa PET/MR system that has a reduced transaxial FOV.

methodsPET performance was evaluated at three different institutions. Spatial resolution, sensitivity, counting rate performance, accuracy, and image quality were measured in accordance with National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2012 standards. The mean energy resolution, mean timing resolution, and PET/CT subsystem alignment were also measured. Phantoms were used to determine the effects of varying acquisition time and reconstruction parameters on image quality. Retrospective patient scans were reconstructed with various scan durations to evaluate the impact on image quality.

resultsResults from all three institutions were similar. Radial/tangential/axial full width at half maximum spatial resolution measurements using the filtered back projection algorithm were 4.3/4.3/5.0 mm, 5.5/4.6/6.5 mm, and 7.4/5.0/6.6 mm at 1, 10, and 20 cm from the center of the FOV, respectively. Measured sensitivity at the center of the FOV (20.84 cps/kBq) was significantly higher than systems with reduced axial FOV. The peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 266.3 kcps at 20.8 kBq/ml, with a corresponding scatter fraction of 40.2%. The correction accuracy for count losses up to the peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 3.6%. For the 10-, 13-, 17-, 22-, 28-, and 37-mm spheres, contrast recoveries in the image quality phantom were measured to be 46.2%, 54.3%, 66.1%, 71.1%, 85.3%, and 89.3%, respectively. The mean energy and timing resolution were 9.55% and 381.7 ps, respectively. Phantom and patient images demonstrated excellent image quality, even at short acquisition times or low injected activity.

conclusionCompared to other PET/CT models, the extended axial FOV improved the overall PET performance of the 5-ring GE Discovery MI scanner. This system offers the potential to reduce scan times or injected activities through increased sensitivity.

Indexed as

HumansPhantoms, ImagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyReference StandardsDiscovery MI-5 ring scannerinstrumentationNEMA NU 2performance characterizationPET/CT

Identifiers

PMID31069816
PMCPMC7251507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.