ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2021
Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of sequential PET/MRI using a newly developed mobile PET system for brain imaging.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of a Q.Clear PET image reconstruction based on bayesian optimization in oncology and neurology applications.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- From FDG and beyond: the evolving potential of nuclear medicine.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- Brain imaging of sequential acquisition using a flexible PET scanner and 3-T MRI: quantitative and qualitative assessment.Annals of nuclear medicine · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical feasibility of a newly developed mobile PET system with MR-compatibility (flexible PET; fxPET), compared with conventional PET (cPET)/CT for brain imaging.
methodsTwenty-one patients underwent cPET/CT with subsequent fxPET/MRI using
resultsAll acquired images were of diagnostic quality and the number of detected lesions did not differ significantly between fxPET/MR and cPET/CT. Mean misregistration was significantly larger with fxPET/MRI than with cPET/CT. SUVmax and SUVmean for fxPET and cPET showed high correlations in the lesions (R = 0.84, 0.79; P < 0.001, P = 0.002, respectively). In normal structures, we also showed high correlations of SUVmax (R = 0.85, 0.87; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) and SUVmean (R = 0.83, 0.87; P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) in bilateral caudate nuclei and a moderate correlation of SUVmax (R = 0.65) and SUVmean (R = 0.63) in vermis.
conclusionsThe fxPET/MRI system showed image quality within the diagnostic range, registration accuracy below 3 mm and regional
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.