ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Head-to-head comparison between digital and analog PET of human and phantom images when optimized for maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio from small lesions.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical added value of LAFOV PET/CT in patients undergoing same-day [18 F]FDG SAFOV PET/CT scans: an initial experience report and explorative study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- A deep-learning noise reduction algorithm outperforms the spatial filters previously required for bone SPECT on a high-speed whole-body 360° CZT-camera.EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Image reconstruction and analysis of atherosclerosis imaging by [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Development and validation of 3D super-resolution convolutional neural network forEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Calculation of recovery coefficients for partial volume effect correction in PET/CT imaging using a customized anthropomorphic body phantom.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Long-axial-field of view in prostate cancer next generation imaging: the launch pad of theragnostic.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Ultra-fast whole-body bone tomoscintigraphies achieved with a high-sensitivity 360° CZT camera and a dedicated deep-learning noise reduction algorithm.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Feasibility of direct brainAsia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Digital versus AnalogDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- PET imaging and quantification of small animals using a clinical SiPM-based camera.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Volume of the proximal half of the thoracic aorta is the most comprehensive FDG-PET/CT indicator of arterial aging throughout adulthood.European journal of hybrid imaging · 2023Article
- Detection of acute myocarditis by ECG-triggered PET imaging of somatostatin receptors compared to cardiac magnetic resonance: preliminary results.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- Investigation and optimization of PET-guided SPECT reconstructions for improved radionuclide therapy dosimetry estimates.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence-based PET denoising could allow a two-fold reduction in [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Phantom-based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Carotid plaque stenosis, metabolism and flow dynamics: Important determinants of atherosclerotic risk?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Shining Damaged Hearts: Immunotherapy-Related Cardiotoxicity in the Spotlight of Nuclear Cardiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Silicon-photomultiplier-based PET/CT reduces the minimum detectable activity of iodine-124.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Yttrium-90 quantitative phantom study using digital photon counting PET.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- ASNC stands for #PatientFirst imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine PET exams are increasingly performed with reduced injected activities, leading to the use of different image reconstruction parameters than the NEMA parameters, in order to prevent from any deleterious decrease in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and thus, in lesion detectability. This study aimed to provide a global head-to-head comparison between digital (Vereos, Philips®) and analog (Ingenuity TF, Philips®) PET cameras of the trade-off between SNR and contrast through a wide-ranging number of reconstruction iterations, and with a further reconstruction optimization based on the SNR of small lesions.
methodsImage quality parameters were compared between the two cameras on human and phantom images for a number of OSEM reconstruction iterations ranging from 1 to 10, the number of subsets being fixed at 10, and with the further identification of reconstruction parameters maximizing the SNR of spheres and adenopathies nearing 10 mm in diameter. These reconstructions were additionally obtained with and without time-of-flight (TOF) information (TOF and noTOF images, respectively) for further comparisons.
resultsOn both human and phantom TOF images, the compromise between SNR and contrast was consistently more advantageous for digital than analog PET, with the difference being particularly pronounced for the lowest numbers of iterations and the smallest spheres. SNR was maximized with 1 and 2 OSEM iterations for the TOF images from digital and analog PET, respectively, whereas 4 OSEM iterations were required for the corresponding noTOF images from both cameras. On the TOF images obtained with this SNR optimization, digital PET exhibited a 37% to 44% higher SNR as compared with analog PET, depending on sphere size. These relative differences were however much lower for the noTOF images optimized for SNR (- 4 to + 18%), as well as for images reconstructed according to NEMA standards (- 4 to + 12%).
conclusionSNR may be dramatically higher for digital PET than for analog PET, especially when optimized for small lesions. This superiority is mostly attributable to enhanced TOF resolution and is significantly underestimated in NEMA-based analyses.
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.