ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Quantitative analysis of patient motion in walk-through PET scanner and standard axial field of view pet scanner using infrared-based tracking.
Article in EJNMMI 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.
- Instrumentation Digital Twins in PET and SPECT Imaging: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Motion study on upright patient positioning in walk-through PET: evaluation in a clinical setting.EJNMMI 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong-axial field-of-view (LAFOV) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanners provide high sensitivity, but throughput is limited because of time-consuming patient positioning. To enhance throughput, a novel Walk-Through PET (WT-PET) scanner has been developed, allowing patients to stand upright, supported by an adjustable headrest and hand supports. This study evaluates the degree of motion in the WT-PET system and compares it with the standard PET-CT.
methodsThree studies were conducted with healthy volunteers to estimate motion. The first two studies assessed motion in the WT-PET's Design I (Study 1) and Design II (Study 2), while the third study compared motion on a standard PET-CT scanner bed (Study 3). Infrared markers placed on the head, shoulders, chest, and abdomen were tracked and processed using image-processing techniques involving thresholding and connected component analysis. Videos were recorded for normal breathing and breath-holding conditions, and 2D centroids were transformed into 3D coordinates using depth information.
resultsThe results shows a significant reduction in motion during breath-holding, especially for the abdomen. Mean motion distances decreased from 2.63 mm to 2.18 mm in Study 1 and from 2.42 mm to 1.67 mm in Study 2. Statistical analysis revealed notable differences in motion between the WT-PET and mCT scanners. The Shapiro-Wilk test indicated non-normal motion distributions in the head, right shoulder, and abdomen for both systems, leading to the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for all markers. Significant differences were found in the right shoulder (p = 0.0266), left shoulder (p = 0.0004) and chest (p < 0.0001) but no significant differences were observed in the head (p = 0.1327) and abdomen (p = 0.8404).
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive analysis of patient motion in a WT-PET scanner with respect to the standard PET. The findings highlight a significant increase in shoulder and chest motion, while the head and abdomen regions showed more stability.
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.