Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37266738›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2023

Evaluation of reconstruction methods and image noise levels concerning visual assessment of simulated liver lesions in

Emma Wikberg, Martijn van Essen, Tobias Rydén, Johanna Svensson, Peter Gjertsson, Peter Bernhardt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emma WikbergDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. emma.wikberg@vgregion.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9441-1059
Martijn van EssenDepartment of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Tobias RydénMedical Physics and Medical Bioengineering, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Johanna SvenssonDepartment of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter GjertssonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter BernhardtDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly cancer detection is crucial for patients' survival. The image quality in

methodsThirty-seven SPECT/CT examinations with

resultsThe detection rates were 30.8% for fAC OSEM, 42.3% for fMC OSEM, and 50.0% for MC OSEM. The accuracies were 45.9% for fAC OSEM, 45.9% for fMC OSEM, and 54.1% for MC OSEM. The number of false positives was higher for fMC and MC OSEM. The observer's confidence level was higher in filtered images than in unfiltered images. TNC ratios were significantly higher, statistically, with MC OSEM and fMC OSEM than with AC OSEM, but SNRs were similar due to higher noise with MC OSEM.

conclusionOne in two lesions were found using MC OSEM versus one in three using conventional reconstruction. TNC ratios were significantly improved, statistically, using MC-based reconstruction, but the noise levels increased and consequently the confidence level of the observer decreased. For further improvements, image noise needs to be suppressed.

Indexed as

Image reconstructionMonte Carlo simulationsNeuroendocrine tumorsSPECT/CT

Identifiers

PMID37266738
PMCPMC10238363
OpenAlexW4379093908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.