ArticleScientific reports2021
Phantom and clinical assessment of small pulmonary nodules using Q.Clear reconstruction on a silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical review of partial volume correction methods in PET and SPECT imaging: benefits, pitfalls, challenges, and future outlook.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Investigate the quantification accuracy of small lesions in oncologicalBMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- EnhancingCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Calculation of recovery coefficients for partial volume effect correction in PET/CT imaging using a customized anthropomorphic body phantom.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization and Bayesian Penalized Likelihood algorithms for PET/CT image reconstruction in various malignancies usingFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Investigation of PET image quality with acquisition time/bed and enhancement of lesion quantification accuracy through deep progressive learning.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Comparative study of the quantitative accuracy of oncological PET imaging based on deep learning methods.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of Image Quality and Quantification Parameters between Q.Clear and OSEM Reconstruction Methods on FDG-PET/CT Images in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Impact of γ factor in the penalty function of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) to achieve high-resolution PET images.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Phantom and clinical evaluation of the effect of a new Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (HYPER Iterative) onEJNMMI research · 2022Article
- Impact of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction on quantitative and qualitative aspects for pulmonary nodule detection in digital 2-[Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Small lesion depiction and quantification accuracy of oncologicalEJNMMI 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the quantification accuracy of different positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) reconstruction algorithms, we measured the recovery coefficient (RC) and contrast recovery (CR) in phantom studies. The results played a guiding role in the partial-volume-effect correction (PVC) for following clinical evaluations. The PET images were reconstructed with four different methods: ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM), OSEM with time-of-flight (TOF), OSEM with TOF and point spread function (PSF), and Bayesian penalized likelihood (BPL, known as Q.Clear in the PET/CT of GE Healthcare). In clinical studies, SUVmax and SUVmean (the maximum and mean of the standardized uptake values, SUVs) of 75 small pulmonary nodules (sub-centimeter group: < 10 mm and medium-size group: 10-25 mm) were measured from 26 patients. Results show that Q.Clear produced higher RC and CR values, which can improve quantification accuracy compared with other methods (P < 0.05), except for the RC of 37 mm sphere (P > 0.05). The SUVs of sub-centimeter fludeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid pulmonary nodules with Q.Clear illustrated highly significant differences from those reconstructed with other algorithms (P < 0.001). After performing the PVC, highly significant differences (P < 0.001) still existed in the SUVmean measured by Q.Clear comparing with those measured by the other algorithms. Our results suggest that the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm improved the quantification accuracy towards the true uptake, which potentially promotes the diagnostic confidence and treatment response evaluations with PET/CT imaging, especially for the sub-centimeter pulmonary nodules. For small lesions, PVC is essential.
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.