ArticleEJNMMI research2021
Post-reconstruction enhancement of [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Deep learning-based low count whole-body positron emission tomography denoising incorporating computed tomography priors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Recent Breakthroughs in PET-CT Multimodality Imaging: Innovations and Clinical Impact.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Automated F18-FDG PET/CT image quality assessment using deep neural networks on a latest 6-ring digital detector system.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Deep Learning Denoising Improves and Homogenizes Patient [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Ultra high speed SPECT bone imaging enabled by a deep learning enhancement method: a proof of concept.EJNMMI physics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to develop and test an artificial intelligence (AI)-based method to improve the quality of [
methodsA convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained by using pairs of excellent (acquisition time of 6 min/bed position) and standard (acquisition time of 1.5 min/bed position) or sub-standard (acquisition time of 1 min/bed position) images from 72 patients. A test group of 25 patients was used to validate the CNN qualitatively and quantitatively with 5 different image sets per patient: 4 min/bed position, 1.5 min/bed position with and without CNN, and 1 min/bed position with and without CNN.
resultsDifference in hotspot maximum or peak standardized uptake value between the standard 1.5 min and 1.5 min CNN images fell short of significance. Coefficient of variation, the noise level, was lower in the CNN-enhanced images compared with standard 1 min and 1.5 min images. Physicians ranked the 1.5 min CNN and the 4 min images highest regarding image quality (noise and contrast) and the standard 1 min images lowest.
conclusionsAI can enhance [
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.