ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Small lesion depiction and quantification accuracy of oncological
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigate the quantification accuracy of small lesions in oncologicalBMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- 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
- Recent Breakthroughs in PET-CT Multimodality Imaging: Innovations and Clinical Impact.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Phantom study and clinical application of total-bodyEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Phantom and clinical evaluation of the effect of a new Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm (HYPER Iterative) onEJNMMI research · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the influence of small voxel Bayesian penalized likelihood (SVB) reconstruction on small lesion detection compared to ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction using a clinical trials network (CTN) chest phantom and the patients with
methodsThe CTN phantom was filled with
resultsIn the phantom study, SVB0.6, SVB0.8, and SVB0.9 achieved higher RCs than SVOSEM. The RC was higher in SVOSEM than RVOSEM and SVB1.0. In the patient study, the SUV
conclusionsThe SVB reconstruction improved lesion contrast, TLR, CNR, and volumetric quantification accuracy for small lesions compared to RVOSEM reconstruction without image noise degradation or the need of longer emission time. A penalty factor of 0.8-0.9 was optimal for SVB reconstruction for the small tumor detection with
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.