Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34364816›Full record

ReviewPET clinics2021

Artificial Intelligence-Based Data Corrections for Attenuation and Scatter in Position Emission Tomography and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography.

Alan B McMillan, Tyler J Bradshaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PET clinics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Image optimization for low-doseEJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. CT-free attenuation and Monte-Carlo based scatter correction-guided quantitativeEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  12. Optimizing Attenuation Correction inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alan B McMillanDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, 3252 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792, USA. Electronic address: amcmillan@uwhealth.org.
Tyler J BradshawDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, 3252 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/tybradshaw11.

Funding

Improved Techniques for Substitute CT Generation from MRI datasetsR01EB026708 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI MCMILLAN, ALAN BLAIR · 2018 to 2021
$1.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) technology have enabled new developments that can improve attenuation and scatter correction in PET and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). These technologies will enable the use of accurate and quantitative imaging without the need to acquire a computed tomography image, greatly expanding the capability of PET/MR imaging, PET-only, and SPECT-only scanners. The use of AI to aid in scatter correction will lead to improvements in image reconstruction speed, and improve patient throughput. This article outlines the use of these new tools, surveys contemporary implementation, and discusses their limitations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhantoms, ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyScattering, RadiationArtificial intelligenceAttenuation correctionDeep learningPETScatter correctionSPECT

Identifiers

PMID34364816
PMCPMC10562009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.