Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37695324›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2023

A proper protocol for routine

Huiran Hu, Yanchao Huang, Hongyan Sun, Kemin Zhou, Li Jiang, Jinmei Zhong, Li Chen, Lijuan Wang, Yanjiang Han, Hubing Wu

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Total Body PET.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Leveraging small voxel with optimal acquisition time for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  7. EJNMMI physics · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Huiran Hu *Nanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Yanchao Huang *Nanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Hongyan Sun *United Imaging Healthcare, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Kemin ZhouNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Li JiangNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Jinmei ZhongNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Li ChenNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Lijuan WangNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Yanjiang HanNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China. riverhanyj@163.com.
Hubing WuNanfang PET Center, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China. wuhbym@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-5430
Nanfang Hospital · CNUnited Imaging Healthcare (China) · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81873905
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional clinical PET scanners typically have an axial field of view (AFOV) of 15-30 cm, resulting in limited coverage and relatively low photon detection efficiency. Taking advantage of the development of long-axial PET/CT, the uEXPLORER PET/CT scanner with an axial coverage of 194 cm increases the effective count rate by approximately 40 times compared to that of conventional PET scanners. Ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) is the most widely used iterative algorithm in PET. The major drawback of OSEM is that the iteration process must be stopped before convergence to avoid image degradation due to excessive noise. A new Bayesian penalized-likelihood iterative PET reconstruction, named HYPER iterative, was developed and is now available on the uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT, which incorporates a noise control component by using a penalty function in each iteration and finds the maximum likelihood solution through repeated iterations. To date, its impact on lesion visibility in patients with a full injected dose or half injected dose is unclear. The goal of this study was to determine a proper protocol for routine

resultsThe uEXPLORER total-body PET/CT images reconstructed using both OSEM and HYPER iterative algorithms of 20 tumour patients were retrospectively reviewed. The quality of the 5 min PET image was excellent (score 5) for all of the dose and reconstruction methods. Using the HYPER iterative method, the PET images reached excellent quality at 1 min with full-dose PET and at 2 min with half-dose PET. The PET image reached a similar excellent quality at 2 min with a full dose and at 3 min with a half dose using OSEM. The noise in the OSEM reconstruction was higher than that in the HYPER iterative. Compared to OSEM, the HYPER iterative had a slightly higher SUVmax and TBR of the lesions for large positive lesions (≥ 2 cm) (SUVmax: up to 9.03% higher in full dose and up to 12.52% higher in half dose; TBR: up to 8.69% higher in full dose and up to 23.39% higher in half dose). For small positive lesions (≤ 10 mm), the HYPER iterative had an obviously higher SUVmax and TBR of the lesions (SUVmax: up to 45.21% higher in full dose and up to 74.96% higher in half dose; TBR: up to 44.91% higher in full dose and up to 93.73% higher in half dose).

conclusionsA 1 min scan with a full dose and a 2 min scan with a half dose are optimal for clinical diagnosis using the HYPER iterative and 2 min and 3 min for OSEM. For quantification of the small lesions, HYPER iterative reconstruction is preferred.

Indexed as

18F-FDGImage qualityInjected radioactivityReconstruction algorithmScan timeuEXPLORER total-body PET/CT

Identifiers

PMID37695324
PMCPMC10495295
OpenAlexW4386593032

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.