ArticleMedical physics2023
Phantom and methodology for comparison of small lesion detectability in PET.
Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe main goal of this work is to describe a phantom design, data acquisition and data analysis methodology enabling comparison of small lesion detectability between PET imaging systems and reconstruction algorithms. Several methods are currently available to characterize intrinsic and image quality performance, but none focus exclusively on small lesion detectability.
methodsWe previously developed a small-lesion detection phantom and described initial results using a head-size phantom. Unlike most fillable nuclear medicine phantoms, this phantom offers a semi-realistic heterogenous background and wall-less contrast features. In this work, the methodology is extended to include (a) the use of both head- and body-sized phantoms and (b) a multi-scan data collection and analysis method. We present an example use case of the phantom and detection estimation methodology, comparing the small-lesion detection performance across four commercial PET/CT systems.
resultsRepeat acquisitions of the phantom enabled estimation of model observer performance and surrogates of detectability. As anticipated, estimated detectability increased with the square root of system sensitivity and TOF offered marked improvement in detectability, especially for the body sized object. The proposed approach characterizing detectability at different times during the decay of the phantom enabled comparison of small lesion detectability at matched activity concentrations (and scan durations) across different scanners.
conclusionThe proposed approach offers a reproducible tool for evaluating relative tradeoffs of system performance on small lesion detectability.
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.