ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Halo artifacts of indwelling urinary catheter by inaccurate scatter correction in
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large scale comparison of maximum likelihood scatter scaling and tail-fitted scatter scaling in LAFOV PET/CT.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Improved Positron Emission Tomography Quantification: Evaluation of a Maximum-Likelihood Scatter Scaling Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Differential privacy preserved federated transfer learning for multi-institutionalEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Data-driven, energy-based method for estimation of scattered events in positron emission tomography.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHalo artifacts from urinary catheters can occur due to inaccurate scatter correction, and the artifacts affect the tumor visibility in
methodsWe conducted patient and phantom studies. (1) We retrospectively reviewed the cases of patients who had undergone
results(1) There were 61 patients with urinary catheters; in five (8.2%), halo artifacts were observed in the TFS 4-mm PET images. (2) The phantom study clearly reproduced the halo artifacts in the TFS 4-mm PET images. The halo artifacts were generated when urine moved in the interval between the CT and PET imaging, and when the urinary catheter was placed in a circular shape. The SUVs for the TFS 4-mm and TFS-2mm PET images were underestimated at the halo-artifact regions, whereas the SUVs for the MCS 4-mm PET images were close to the true values. (3) The halo artifacts disappeared in the TFS 2-mm PET images in 4/5 patients but not 1/5 patient, whereas the halo artifacts were completely absent in the MCS 4-mm PET images in 5/5 patients.
conclusionsThese data suggest that halo artifacts are caused if the PET images do not correspond to the physical material in the μ-maps, which induces the scatter correction error. With the MC-SSS, it was possible to accurately estimate the scatter without generating halo artifacts.
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.