ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2023
Advances in Digital PET Technology and Its Potential Impact on Myocardial Perfusion and Blood Flow Quantification.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2023. 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.
- Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry ofEJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Inter-Software Reproducibility of Quantitative Values of Myocardial Blood Flow and Coronary Flow Reserve Acquired by [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Recent Progress in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Techniques.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Review
- The role of cardiac PET in diagnosis and prognosis of patients with ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA).American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
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
purpose of reviewIn this review, we explore the development of digital PET scanners and describe the mechanism by which they work. We dive into some technical details on what differentiates a digital PET from a conventional PET scanner and how such differences lead to better imaging characteristics. Additionally, we summarize the available evidence on the improvements in the images acquired by digital PET as well as the remaining pitfalls. Finally, we report the comparative studies available on how digital PET compares to conventional PET, particularly in the quantification of coronary blood flow. RECENT
findingsThe advent of digital PET offers high sensitivity and time-of-flight (TOF), which allow lower activity and scan times, with much less risk of detector saturation. This allows faster patient throughput, scanning more patients per generator, and acquiring more consistent image quality across patients. The higher sensitivity captures more of the potential artifacts, particularly motion-related ones, which presents a current challenge that still needs to be tackled. The digital silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) positron emission tomography (PET) machine has been an important development in the technological advancements of non-invasive nuclear cardiovascular imaging. It has enhanced the utility for PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36826688What 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.