Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37843705›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2023

The effects of various penalty parameter values in Q.Clear algorithm for rectal cancer detection on

Fatemeh Sadeghi, Peyman Sheikhzadeh, Saeed Farzanehfar, Pardis Ghafarian, Yalda Moafpurian, Mohammadreza Ay

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. β1600 Q.Clear Digital Reconstruction of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    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.

Fatemeh SadeghiDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Peyman SheikhzadehDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. sheikhzadeh-p@sina.tums.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3053-2641
Saeed FarzanehfarDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Pardis GhafarianChronic Respiratory Diseases Research Center, National Research Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases (NRITLD), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. pardis.ghafarian@sbmu.ac.ir.
Yalda MoafpurianDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, 7134814336, Iran.
Mohammadreza AyDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services 98-3-101-45508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Q.Clear algorithm is a fully convergent iterative image reconstruction technique. We hypothesize that different PET/CT scanners with distinct crystal properties will require different optimal settings for the Q.Clear algorithm. Many studies have investigated the improvement of the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm on PET/CT scanner with LYSO crystals and SiPM detectors. We propose an optimum penalization factor (β) for the detection of rectal cancer and its metastases using a BGO-based detector PET/CT system which obtained via accurate and comprehensive phantom and clinical studies.

methods

resultsOSEM had 11.5-18.6% higher BV than Q.Clear using β value of 500. Conversely, RC from OSEM to Q.Clear using β value of 500 decreased by 3.3-7.7% for a sphere with a diameter of 10 mm and 2.5-5.1% for a sphere with a diameter of 37 mm. Furthermore, the increment of contrast using a β value of 500 was 5.2-8.1% in the smallest spheres compared to OSEM. When the β value was increased from 100 to 500, the SNR increased by 49.1% and 30.8% in the smallest and largest spheres at LBR 2:1, respectively. At LBR of 8:1, the relative difference of SNR between β value of 100 and 500 was 43.7% and 44.0% in the smallest and largest spheres, respectively. In the clinical study, as β increased from 100 to 500, the SUVmax decreased by 47.7% in small and 31.1% in large lesions. OSEM demonstrated the least SUVmax, SBR, and contrast. The decrement of SBR and contrast using OSEM were 13.6% and 12.9% in small and 4.2% and 3.4%, respectively, in large lesions.

conclusionsImplementing Q.Clear enhances quantitative accuracies through a fully convergent voxel-based image approach, employing a penalization factor. In the BGO-based scanner, the optimal β value for small lesions ranges from 200 for LBR 2:1 to 300 for LBR 8:1. For large lesions, the optimal β value is between 400 for LBR 2:1 and 500 for LBR 8:1. We recommended β value of 300 for small lesions and β value of 500 for large lesions in clinical study.

Indexed as

18F-FDGBayesian methodImage reconstructionPET-CT

Identifiers

PMID37843705
PMCPMC10579211

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.