Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31823084›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2019

Noise reduction using a Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm on a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner.

Paulo R R V Caribé, M Koole, Yves D'Asseler, B Van Den Broeck, S Vandenberghe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Characterization of open-source BSREM reconstruction forPhysical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Image optimization for low-doseEJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. β1600 Q.Clear Digital Reconstruction of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Kinetic Modeling of Brain [Metabolites · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
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

5 authors.

Paulo R R V CaribéMedical Image and Signal Processing - MEDISIP, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Gent, Belgium. paulo.caribe@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2284-2674
M KooleDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, UZ/KU, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Yves D'AsselerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Gent, Belgium.
B Van Den BroeckDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Gent, Belgium.
S VandenbergheMedical Image and Signal Processing - MEDISIP, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Gent, Belgium.

Funding

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico process number 235040/2014-2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQ.Clear is a block sequential regularized expectation maximization (BSREM) penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm for PET. It tries to improve image quality by controlling noise amplification during image reconstruction. In this study, the noise properties of this BSREM were compared to the ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm for both phantom and patient data acquired on a state-of-the-art PET/CT.

methodsThe NEMA IQ phantom and a whole-body patient study were acquired on a GE DMI 3-rings system in list mode and different datasets with varying noise levels were generated. Phantom data was evaluated using four different contrast ratios. These were reconstructed using BSREM with different β-factors of 300-3000 and with a clinical setting used for OSEM including point spread function (PSF) and time-of-flight (TOF) information. Contrast recovery (CR), background noise levels (coefficient of variation, COV), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were used to determine the performance in the phantom data. Findings based on the phantom data were compared with clinical data. For the patient study, the SUV ratio, metabolic active tumor volumes (MATVs), and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were evaluated using the liver as the background region.

resultsBased on the phantom data for the same count statistics, BSREM resulted in higher CR and CNR and lower COV than OSEM. The CR of OSEM matches to the CR of BSREM with β = 750 at high count statistics for 8:1. A similar trend was observed for the ratios 6:1 and 4:1. A dependence on sphere size, counting statistics, and contrast ratio was confirmed by the CNR of the ratio 2:1. BSREM with β = 750 for 2.5 and 1.0 min acquisition has comparable COV to the 10 and 5.0 min acquisitions using OSEM. This resulted in a noise reduction by a factor of 2-4 when using BSREM instead of OSEM. For the patient data, a similar trend was observed, and SNR was reduced by at least a factor of 2 while preserving contrast.

conclusionThe BSREM reconstruction algorithm allowed a noise reduction without a loss of contrast by a factor of 2-4 compared to OSEM reconstructions for all data evaluated. This reduction can be used to lower the injected dose or shorten the acquisition time.

Indexed as

BSREMOSEMPenalized-likelihood reconstructionPETQ.Clear

Identifiers

PMID31823084
PMCPMC6904688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.