ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2022
Image quality evaluation of real low-dose breast PET.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolution and Clinical Impact of Deep Learning Technologies in Breast MRI.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Review
- Generative AI and large language models in nuclear medicine: current status and future prospects.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of state-of-the-art biopsy systems for ultrasound-guided breast biopsy using a chicken breast phantom.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Article
- Investigation of imaging features in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of benign and malignant breast lesions.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Clinical Utility of Breast Ultrasound Images Synthesized by a Generative Adversarial Network.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- From FDG and beyond: the evolving potential of nuclear medicine.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- Performance of dedicated breast PET in breast cancer screening: comparison with digital mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- Proposal to Improve the Image Quality of Short-Acquisition Time-Dedicated Breast Positron Emission Tomography Using the Pix2pix Generative Adversarial Network.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical feasibility of high-resolution dedicated breast positron emission tomography (dbPET) with real low-dose MATERIALS AND
methodsNine women with no history of breast cancer and previously scanned by dbPET injected with a clinical
resultsIn visual evaluation, the contrast between the mammary gland and fat acquired at a 50% dose for 7 min was comparable and even better in smoothness than that in the images acquired at a 100% dose. No visual difference between the images with a 50% dose was found with scan start times 60 and 90 min after injection. Quantitative evaluation showed a slightly lower contrast in the image at 60 min after 50% dosing, with no difference between acquisition times. There was no difference in CV between conditions; however, smoothness decreased with shorter acquisition time in all conditions.
conclusionsThe quality of dbPET images with a 50% FDG dose was high enough for clinical application. Although the optimal scan start time for improved lesion-to-background mammary gland contrast remained unknown in this study, it will be clarified in future studies of breast cancer patients.
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.