ArticlePloS one2024
Impact of improved dead time correction on the quantification accuracy of a dedicated BrainPET scanner.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveQuantitative values derived from PET brain images are of high interest for neuroscientific applications. Insufficient DT correction (DTC) can lead to a systematic bias of the output parameters obtained by a detailed analysis of the time activity curves (TACs). The DTC method currently used for the Siemens 3T MR BrainPET insert is global, i.e., differences in DT losses between detector blocks are not considered, leading to inaccurate DTC and, consequently, to inaccurate measurements masked by a bias. However, following careful evaluation with phantom measurements, a new block-pairwise DTC method has demonstrated a higher degree of accuracy compared to the global DTC method. APPROACH: Differences between the global and the block-pairwise DTC method were studied in this work by applying several radioactive tracers. We evaluated the impact on [11C]ABP688, O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET), and [15O]H2O TACs.
resultsFor [11C]ABP688, a relevant bias of between -0.0034 and -0.0053 ml/ (cm3 • min) was found in all studied brain regions for the volume of distribution (VT) when using the current global DTC method. For [18F]FET-PET, differences of up to 10% were observed in the tumor-to-brain ratio (TBRmax), these differences depend on the radial distance of the maximum from the PET isocenter. For [15O]H2O, differences between +4% and -7% were observed in the GM region. Average biases of -4.58%, -3.2%, and -1.2% for the regional cerebral blood flow (CBF (K1)), the rate constant k2, and the volume of distribution VT were observed, respectively. Conversely, in the white matter region, average biases of -4.9%, -7.0%, and 3.8% were observed for CBF (K1), k2, and VT, respectively.
conclusionThe bias introduced by the global DTC method leads to an overestimation in the studied quantitative parameters for all applications compared to the block-pairwise method. SIGNIFICANCE: The observed differences between the two DTC methods are particularly relevant for research applications in neuroscientific studies as they affect the accuracy of quantitative Brain PET images.
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.