ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2024
Optimization of penalization function in Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for [
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 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.
- Reconstruction-dependent differences in brain [18F]FDG PET: a large-scale same-acquisition comparison of Q.Clear and VUE Point FX.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Semi-quantitative tau PET approaches for Braak staging: concordance of CenTauRz and STOC with visual assessment.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2025Review
- Effects of a deep learning-based image quality enhancement method on a digital-BGO PET/CT system forEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Point-spread-function (PSF) correction is not recommended for amyloid PET images due to Gibbs artifacts. Q.Clear™, a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (BPL) reconstruction method without incorporating PSF correction reduces these artifacts but degrades image contrast by our previous findings. The present study aimed to recover lost contrast by optimizing reconstruction parameters in time-of-flight (TOF) BPL reconstruction of amyloid PET images without PSF correction. We selected candidate conditions based on a phantom study and then determined which were optimal in a clinical study. Phantom images were reconstructed under conditions of 1‒9 iterations, β 300-1000 and γ factors from 2 to 10 in TOF-BPL without PSF correction. We evaluated the %contrast and the coefficients of variation (CV, %). Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr) and Centiloid scales (CL) were calculated from PET images acquired from 71 participants after an [
Indexed as
Identifiers
39133373What 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.