ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
The effect of Q.Clear reconstruction on quantification and spatial resolution of 18F-FDG PET in simultaneous PET/MR.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconstruction-dependent differences in brain [18F]FDG PET: a large-scale same-acquisition comparison of Q.Clear and VUE Point FX.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Optimization of a Q.Clear PET image reconstruction based on bayesian optimization in oncology and neurology applications.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Optimisation of Q.Clear (BSREM) Reconstruction Parameters forBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Q.Clear reconstruction shortening the scanning time forEJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of regularization factor and attenuation correction method of Q.Clear reconstruction for brain PET/MR in epileptic patients.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Does Q.Clear Processing Change PET Ratios? Quantitative Evidence Using BTXBrain-DAT.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Effects of a deep learning-based image quality enhancement method on a digital-BGO PET/CT system forEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Improving image reconstruction to quantify dynamic whole-body PET/CT: Q.Clear versus OSEM.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Performance evaluation of the 3D-ring cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) StarGuide system according to the NEMA NU 1-2018 standard.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- β1600 Q.Clear Digital Reconstruction of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Reduced count pediatric whole-bodyPediatric radiology · 2024Article
- Optimization of Q.Clear reconstruction for dynamicEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Rapid Whole-Body FDG PET/MRI in Oncology Patients: Utility of Combining Bayesian Penalised Likelihood PET Reconstruction and Abbreviated MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- HYPR4D kernel method on TOF PET data with validations including image-derived input function.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
Abstract
backgroundQ.Clear is a block sequential regularized expectation maximization penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm for Positron Emission Tomography (PET). It has shown high potential in improving image reconstruction quality and quantification accuracy in PET/CT system. However, the evaluation of Q.Clear in PET/MR system, especially for clinical applications, is still rare. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of Q.Clear on the
methodsA PET National Electrical Manufacturers Association/ International Electrotechnical Commission (NEMA/IEC) phantom was scanned on GE SIGNA PET/MR, based on NEMA NU 2-2012 standard. Metrics including contrast recovery (CR), background variability (BV), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and spatial resolution were evaluated for phantom data. For clinical data, lesion SNR, signal to background ratio (SBR), noise level and visual scores were evaluated. PET images reconstructed from OSEM + TOF and Q.Clear were visually compared and statistically analyzed, where OSEM + TOF adopted point spread function as default procedure, and Q.Clear used different β values of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 800, 1100 and 1400.
resultsFor phantom data, as β value increased, CR and BV of all sizes of spheres decreased in general; images reconstructed from Q.Clear reached the peak SNR with β value of 400 and generally had better resolution than those from OSEM + TOF. For clinical data, compared with OSEM + TOF, Q.Clear with β value of 400 achieved 138% increment in median SNR (from 58.8 to 166.0), 59% increment in median SBR (from 4.2 to 6.8) and 38% decrement in median noise level (from 0.14 to 0.09). Based on visual assessment from two physicians, Q.Clear with β values ranging from 200 to 400 consistently achieved higher scores than OSEM + TOF, where β value of 400 was considered optimal.
conclusionsThe present study indicated that, on
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.