ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2022
Application of a Flexible PET Scanner Combined with 3 T MRI Using Non-local Means Reconstruction: Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison with Whole-Body PET/CT.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFlexible positron emission tomography (fxPET) employing a non-local means reconstruction algorithm was designed to fit existing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems. We aimed to compare the qualitative and quantitative performance of fxPET among fxPET with MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC), fxPET with CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC) using CT as a part of WB PET/CT, and whole-body (WB) PET/CT. PROCEDURES: Sixteen patients with suspected head and neck cancer underwent 2-deoxy-2-[
resultsThe phantom data in fxPET, except the percent contrast recoveries of 17-mm and 22-mm hot spheres, were inferior to those in WB PET/CT. The mean registration accuracy was 4.4 mm between fxPET using MRAC and MRI. The image quality was comparable between two fxPET datasets, but significantly inferior to WB PET/CT (p < 0.0001). In contrast, detection rates were comparable among the three datasets. SUVmax was significantly higher, and MTV and TLG were significantly lower in the two fxPET datasets compared with the WB PET/CT dataset (p < 0.005). There were no significant differences in SUVmax, MTV, and TLG between the two fxPET datasets or in TMR among the three datasets. All quantitative values had significantly positive correlations.
conclusionsCompared with WB PET/CT, the phantom data and image quality were inferior in fxPET. However, the results of the detection rates and quantitative values suggested the clinical feasibility of fxPET.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34642900What 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.