ArticleEJNMMI physics2021
Standardisation of conventional and advanced iterative reconstruction methods for Gallium-68 multi-centre PET-CT trials.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of patient size on image quality of OSEM3D and BSREM reconstructions in [EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Recent Breakthroughs in PET-CT Multimodality Imaging: Innovations and Clinical Impact.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- β1600 Q.Clear Digital Reconstruction of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of [Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- EANM guidance document: dosimetry for first-in-human studies and early phase clinical trials.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Improved [Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Eligibility forJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Positron Range Corrections and Denoising Techniques for Gallium-68 PET Imaging: A Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the applicability of the Fluorine-18 performance specifications defined by EANM Research Ltd (EARL), in Gallium-68 multi-centre PET-CT trials using conventional (ordered subset expectation maximisation, OSEM) and advanced iterative reconstructions which include the systems' point spread function (PSF) and a Bayesian penalised likelihood algorithm (BPL) commercially known as Q.CLEAR. The possibility of standardising the two advanced reconstruction methods was examined.
methodsThe NEMA image quality phantom was filled with Gallium-68 and scanned on a GE PET-CT system. PSF and BPL with varying post-reconstruction Gaussian filter width (2-6.4 mm) and penalisation factor (200-1200), respectively, were applied. The average peak-to-valley ratio from six profiles across each sphere was estimated to inspect any edge artefacts. Image noise was assessed using background variability and image roughness. Six GE and Siemens PET-CT scanners provided Gallium-68 images of the NEMA phantom using both conventional and advanced reconstructions from which the maximum, mean and peak recoveries were drawn. Fourteen patients underwent
resultsA Gaussian filter width of approximately 6 mm for PSF and a penalisation factor of 800 for BPL were needed to suppress the edge artefacts. In addition, those reconstructions provided the closest agreement between the two advanced iterative reconstructions and low noise levels with the background variability and the image roughness being lower than 7.5% and 11.5%, respectively. The recoveries for all methods generally performed at the lower limits of the EARL specifications, especially for the 13- and 10-mm spheres for which up to 27% (conventional) and 41% (advanced reconstructions) lower limits are suggested. The lesion standardised uptake values from the clinical data were significantly different between BPL and PSF smoothed with a Gaussian filter of 6.4 mm wide for all penalisation factors except for 800 and 1000.
conclusionIt is possible to standardise the advanced reconstruction methods with the reconstruction parameters being also sufficient for minimising the edge artefacts and noise in the images. For both conventional and advanced reconstructions, Gallium-68 specific recovery coefficient limits were required, especially for the smallest phantom spheres.
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.