ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2025
Usefulness of a new anthropomorphic phantom simulating the chest and abdomen regions in PET tests.
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2025. 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.
- Assessing small-lesion detectability and acquisition time optimisation in silicon-detector-Based PET: a phantom study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Innovations in clinical PET image reconstruction: advances in Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm and deep learning.Annals of nuclear medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the clinical utility of a new anthropomorphic phantom that reproduces the chest and abdomen better than the conventional National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) body phantom, count rates and image quality of PET images obtained from patients were evaluated.
methodsAnthropomorphic phantoms were used to include radioactivity in the lung, liver, kidney, and background regions. Two NEMA body phantoms were used for chest and abdominal assessments. The cross calibration factor (CCF) cylinder phantom was also used to reproduce the distribution of radioactivity outside the field of view, simulating the patient brain. Four types of phantoms were used in the PET imaging experiment, and for each phantom, the prompt coincidence count rates, random coincidence count rates, true + scatter coincidence count rates, and single photon count rates were measured. Then, these count rates were compared with count rates from actual clinical data. PET image quality assessment was done using the parameters, noise equivalent count patient (NEC
resultsRandom coincidence count rates showed that the data obtained from each phantom were in good agreement with the clinical data. True + scatter coincidence count rates had better agreement with clinical data when measured for anthropomorphic phantoms than for the NEMA body phantoms. Furthermore, when the CCF Cylinder phantom simulating the brain was placed outside the imaging field of view, the results were closer to the clinical data. PET image quality was 1.4% higher for NEC
conclusionThe new anthropomorphic phantom was more consistent with the count rates obtained from clinical data than the conventional NEMA body phantoms were and it was able to better simulate the distribution of radioactivity concentrations in the patients by reproducing the distribution of radioactivity concentrations outside the field of view.
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.