Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40591116›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2025

Impact of patient size on image quality of OSEM3D and BSREM reconstructions in [

Christina P W Cox, Tessa Brabander, Frederik A Verburg, Marcel Segbers

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christina P W CoxDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. c.cox@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5313-6727
Tessa BrabanderDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8000-6490
Frederik A VerburgDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1401-1993
Marcel SegbersDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-3984

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious [

methods[

resultsBSREM mean SNRliver was significantly (p < 0.001) higher than OSEM3D mean SNRliver. Body mass, the best patient-dependent parameter for both algorithms, clarified 40% (linear model) and 53% (non-linear model) of the variability in SNRliver,norm for OSEM3D and 20% (linear model) and 21% (non-linear model) for BSREM. AICc preferred a non-linear model for OSEM3D and a linear model for BSREM.

conclusionThe image quality predictor body weight is a weaker predictor for BSREM than for OSEM3D image quality in [

Indexed as

[68Ga]Ga-DOTA-TATEBlock-sequential regularized expectation maximizationBody weightBSREMDosage regimenImage qualityNeuroendocrine tumourOrdered subset expectation maximizationOSEMPatient sizePET/MR

Identifiers

PMID40591116
PMCPMC12214164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.