ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Feasibility of positron range correction in 82-Rubidium cardiac PET/CT.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence Across the PET Reconstruction Pipeline: An Update.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2026Review
- Combined perfusion and metabolic imaging of small cell lung cancer with dual-isotope LAFOV-PET.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Positron Range Correction Helps Enhance the Image Quality of CardiacJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Cardiovascular Diseases Research Using Animal Models and PET Radioisotope Tracers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) using positron emission tomography (PET) tracers is an essential tool in investigating diseases and treatment responses in cardiology.
methodsThe effect of positron range correction (PRC) on
resultsNEMA NU-4 metrics (no PRC vs PRC): %SD 0.087 versus 0.103; SOR (air) 0.022 versus 0.002, SOR (water) 0.059 versus 0.019; RC (3 mm) 0.219 versus 0.584, RC (4 mm) 0.300 versus 0.874, RC (5 mm) 0.357 versus 1.197. Cardiac phantom full width at half maximum (FWHM) and full width at tenth maximum (FWTM) (no PRC vs. PRC): FWTM 6.73 mm versus 3.26 mm (true: 3 mm), FWTM 9.27 mm versus 7.01 mm. The in vivo scans with respiratory gating had a homogeneous myocardium clearly distinguishable from the blood pool.
conclusionPRC improved the spatial resolution for the phantoms and in vivo at the expense of slightly more noise. Combined with respiratory gating, the spatial resolution achieved using PRC should allow for quantitative MPI in small animals.
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.