ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Comparison of two elastic motion correction approaches for whole-body PET/CT: motion deblurring vs gate-to-gate motion correction.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical validation of a unified data-driven respiratory motion correction technique inEJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Effect of data-driven motion correction for respiratory movement on lesion detectability in PET-CT: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Recent Breakthroughs in PET-CT Multimodality Imaging: Innovations and Clinical Impact.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Data-driven gating (DDG)-based motion match for improved CTAC registration.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a respiratory motion-corrected image reconstruction algorithm in 2-[Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
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
backgroundRespiratory motion in PET/CT leads to well-known image degrading effects commonly compensated using elastic motion correction approaches. Gate-to-gate motion correction techniques are promising tools for improving clinical PET data but suffer from relatively long reconstruction times. In this study, the performance of a fast elastic motion compensation approach based on motion deblurring (DEB-MC) was evaluated on patient and phantom data and compared to an EM-based fully 3D gate-to-gate motion correction method (G2G-MC) which was considered the gold standard.
methodsTwenty-eight patients were included in this study with suspected or confirmed malignancies in the thorax or abdomen. All patients underwent whole-body [
resultsPhantom data analysis showed high lesion recovery values of 91% (2 cm motion) and 98% (1 cm) for G2G-MC and 83% (2 cm) and 90% (1 cm) for DEB-MC. The statistical analysis of patient data found significant differences between NOMC and MC reconstructions for SUV
conclusionBoth motion correction techniques deliver comparable improvements of SUV
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.