ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Investigation of optimal settings for deviceless respiratory synchronization in PET/CT examinations: effects of different reconstructions on image quality.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) images can be compromised by respiratory motion, leading to a decreased standardized uptake value (SUV) of the lesion and overestimation of the metabolic tumor volume (MTV). This study aimed to determine the optimal settings for auto-gating, a deviceless respiratory synchronization technique, using advanced intelligent clear-IQ engines (AiCE) and clear adaptive low-noise method (CaLM) reconstruction conditions. We performed phantom and clinical studies on 57 patients with pulmonary lesions. We acquired images at various %count settings (nongated, 30%, 50%, and 70%) using both AiCE and CaLM. In each setting, we measured the SUVmax, SUVpeak, and MTV of the lesions and calculated and compared the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the liver. Additionally, we visually assessed lesion blurring and image noise to confirm whether the quantitative evaluation was consistent with the visual evaluation. Considering our findings, the optimal auto-gating setting at an acquisition time of 180 s is 50% for the lower lobe in AiCE and for both the lower and middle lobes in CaLM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41003987What 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.