ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Exploration of the total-body PET/CT reconstruction protocol with ultra-low
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, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- An artificial intelligence-driven image quality assessment system for whole-body [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Trial
- Article
- Reducing acquisition time in O-(2-Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Effect of reconstruction settings on radiomics feature robustness in positron emission tomography images: a clinical study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Novel molecular imaging approaches in oncology: towards a more accurate estimation of tumour response.Current opinion in oncology · 2025Review
- EnhancingCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- A fully automated, expert-perceptive image quality assessment system for whole-body [18F]FDG PET/CT.EJNMMI research · 2025Article
- [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Stability of radiomic features from positron emission tomography images: a phantom study comparing advanced reconstruction algorithms and ordered subset expectation maximization.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Phantom study and clinical application of total-bodyEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- One-tenth-activity total-body positron emission tomography versus full-activity imaging in patients with a complex of hepatic malignant tumors: a retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Review
- A proper protocol for routineEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- So, you want to get into "total-body" PET/CT scanning? An installation guide for beginners!Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Review
- Phantom and clinical evaluation of the effect of a new Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (HYPER Iterative) onEJNMMI research · 2022Article
- Total-body pediatric PET is ready for prime time.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the image quality and diagnostic performance of different reconstructions over a wide range of patient body mass indices (BMIs) obtained by total-body PET/CT with ultra-low
methodsA total of 63 patients who underwent total-body PET/CT with ultra-low activity (0.37 MBq/kg)
resultsIncreased noise was associated with increased BMI in all reconstruction groups. Significant differences occurred in the liver SNR among BMI categories of OSEM reconstructions (P < 0.001) but no difference was seen in the HYPER Iterative reconstructions between any of the BMI categories (P > 0.05). With the increase in BMI, overall image quality and image noise scores decreased significantly in all reconstructions, but there was no statistically significant difference of lesion conspicuity. The overall image quality score of the obese group was not qualified (score = 2.7) in OSEM3, while the others were qualified. The lesion conspicuity scores were significantly higher in HYPER Iterative reconstructions and lower in OSEM2 than in OSEM3 (all P < 0.05). The values of SUV
conclusionConsidering the image quality and lesion analysis in
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.