ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Performance characteristics of the 5-ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT scanner using AAPM TG-126 report.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation of tissue-dependent and spatially-variant positron range correction for Gallium-68 PET imaging.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Impact of tissue-independent positron range correction on [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Performance characteristics of the 5-ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT scanner using AAPM TG-126 report.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo report on the performance characteristics of the 5-ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT systems using the AAPM TG-126 report and compare these results to NEMA NU 2-2012 where applicable. MATERIALS AND
methodsTG-126 testing was performed on two GE 5-Rings Discovery MI scanners. Tests performed included spatial resolution, PET/CT image-registration accuracy, sensitivity, count rate performance, accuracy of corrections, image contrast, scatter/attenuation correction, and image uniformity. All acquired data were analyzed using scanner console or free software tools as described by TG-126 and the results were then compared to published NEMA NU 2-2012 values.
resultsBoth scanners gave similar resolution results for TG-126 and NEMA NU 2-2012 and were within manufacturer specifications. Image-registration accuracy between PET and CT using our clinical protocol showed excellent results with values ≤1 mm. Sensitivity using TG-126 was 19.43 cps/kBq while for NEMA the value was 20.73 cps/kBq. The peak noise-equivalent counting rate was 2174 kcps at 63.1 kBq/mL and is not comparable to NEMA NU 2-2012 due to differences in phantoms and methods used to measure and calculate this parameter. The accuracy of corrections for count losses for TG-126 were expressed in SUV values and found to be within 10% of the expected SUV measurement of 1. Image contrast and scatter/attenuation correction using the TG-126 method gave acceptable results. Image uniformity assessment resulted in values within the recommended ± 5% limits.
conclusionThese results show that the 5-ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT scanner testing using TG-126 is reproducible and has similar results to NEMA NU 2-2012 tests where applicable. We hope these results start to form the basis to compare PET/CT systems using TG-126.
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.