ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Image quality evaluation for a clinical organ-targeted PET camera.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design and first experimental results of an edgeless PET prototype for breast imaging: DeepBreast.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Improved Edge Pixel Resolution in Modular PET Detectors with Partly Segmented Light Guides.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Multi-angle acquisition and 3D composite reconstruction for organ-targeted PET using planar detectors.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Comparative pathophysiology and molecular insights into cutaneous and non-cutaneous canine skin cancers: focus on melanoma, mast cell tumors, and squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A newly developed clinical organ-targeted Positron Emission Tomography (PET) system (also known as Radialis PET) is tested with a set of standardized and custom tests previously used to evaluate the performance of Positron Emission Mammography (PEM) systems. Methods: Imaging characteristics impacting standardized uptake value (SUV) and detectability of small lesions, namely spatial resolution, linearity, uniformity, and recovery coefficients, are evaluated. Results: In-plane spatial resolution was measured as 2.3 mm ± 0.1 mm, spatial accuracy was 0.1 mm, and uniformity measured with flood field and NEMA NU-4 phantom was 11.7% and 8.3% respectively. Selected clinical images are provided as reference to the imaging capabilities under different clinical conditions such as reduced activity of 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ( Discussion: Demonstrated ability to accurately reconstruct activity in tumors as small as 5 mm suggests that the Radialis PET technology may be well suited for emerging clinical applications such as image guided assessment of response to neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) in lesions smaller than 2 cm. Also, our results suggest that, while spatial resolution greatly influences the partial volume effect which degrades contrast recovery, optimized count rate performance and image reconstruction workflow may improve recovery coefficients for systems with comparable spatial resolution. We emphasize that recovery coefficient should be considered as a primary performance metric when a PET system is used for accurate lesion size or radiotracer uptake assessments.
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.