ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Assessment of lesion insertion tool in pelvis PET/MR data with applications to attenuation correction method development.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of artificial intelligence performance for lesion detection using synthetic lesions in PET imaging.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Assessment of lesion insertion tool in pelvis PET/MR data with applications to attenuation correction method development.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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn modern positron emission tomography (PET) with multi-modality imaging (e.g., PET/CT and PET/MR), the attenuation correction (AC) is the single largest correction factor for image reconstruction. One way to assess AC methods and other reconstruction parameters is to utilize software-based simulation tools, such as a lesion insertion tool. Extensive validation of these simulation tools is required to ensure results of the study are clinically meaningful. PURPOSE: To evaluate different PET AC methods using a synthetic lesion insertion tool that simulates lesions in a patient cohort that has both PET/MR and PET/CT images. To further demonstrate how lesion insertion tool may be used to extend knowledge of PET reconstruction parameters, including but not limited to AC.
methodsLesion quantitation is compared using conventional Dixon-based MR-based AC (MRAC) to that of using CT-based AC (CTAC, a "ground truth"). First, the pre-existing lesions were simulated in a similar environment; a total of 71 lesions were identified in 18 pelvic PET/MR patient images acquired with a time-of-flight simultaneous PET/MR scanner, and matched lesions were inserted contralaterally on the same axial slice. Second, synthetic lesions were inserted into four anatomic target locations in a cohort of four patients who didn't have any observed clinical lesions in the pelvis.
resultsThe matched lesion insertions resulted in unity between the lesion error ratios (mean SUVs), demonstrating that the inserted lesions successfully simulated the original lesions. In the second study, the inserted lesions had distinct characteristics by target locations and demonstrated negative max-SUV%diff trends for bone-dominant sites across the patient cohort.
conclusionsThe current work demonstrates that the applied lesion insertion tool can simulate uptake in pelvic lesions and their expected SUV values, and that the lesion insertion tool can be extended to evaluate further PET reconstruction corrections and algorithms and their impact on quantitation accuracy and precision.
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.