ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Characterization of time of flight and resolution modeling on image quality in positron emission tomography.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical 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.
- Experimental determination of PET modulation transfer functions incorporating positron range effects using an oversampled cylindrical source.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Radiation Detectors and Sensors in Medical Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Characterization of time of flight and resolution modeling on image quality in positron emission tomography.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Investigating the Impact of Voxel Size and Postfiltering on Quantitative Analysis of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: A Phantom Study.Journal of medical physicsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time-of-flight (TOF) and resolution modeling (RM) algorithms are frequently used in clinical PET images, and inclusion of these corrections should measurably improve image quality. We quantified the effects of these correction algorithms on reconstructed images via the following metrics: recovery coefficients (RCs), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), noise-power spectrum (NPS), modulation transfer function (MTF), and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a point source. The goal of this experiment was to assess the effects of the correction algorithms when applied singly or together. Two different phantom tests were performed and analyzed by custom software. FWHM and MTF were measured using capillary tube point sources, while RCs, CNR, and NPS were measured using an image quality body phantom. Images were reconstructed with both TOF and RM, only TOF, only RM, or neither correction. The remaining reconstruction parameters used the standard clinical protocol. RM improved RCs, FWHM, and MTF, without increasing overall noise significantly. TOF improves CNR for small objects FWHM or MTF but did not decrease noise. RCs were not statistically improved by enabling these algorithms. Inclusion of both correction algorithms in image reconstruction provides an overall improvement to all metrics relative to the uncorrected image, but not by a significant margin in multiple aspects.
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.