ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Large scale comparison of maximum likelihood scatter scaling and tail-fitted scatter scaling in LAFOV PET/CT.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScatter scaling during the reconstruction of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) data is a crucial element for obtaining clinically applicable images with accurate quantification and high image quality. The current clinical standard for scatter scaling is fitting the tail regions of the single scatter simulation (SSS) estimate, which is termed Tail-Fitted Scatter Scaling (TFSS). This study aims to compare a Maximum Likelihood Scatter Scaling (MLSS) algorithm relative to TFSS using a NEMA IQ phantom investigation and a patient cohort including 500 patients using long axial Field-of-View (LAFOV) PET. The relative difference between the two scatter scaling algorithms was investigated using uptake values of 12 organs. Furthermore, the proximity of known regions showing high activity relative to the surrounding tissue was analysed.
resultsThe NEMA image quality phantom study showed agreement between the expected activity concentration and the MLSS reconstructions. MLSS showed uptake values of 137.3 ± 3.4 kBq/mL in the largest sphere and 34.6 ± 0.5 kBq/mL in the background, closely matching the true concentrations of 136.6 kBq/mL and 35.0 kBq/mL, respectively. TFSS provided uptake values of 133.7 ± 3.5 kBq/mL in the largest sphere and 33.0 ± 0.9 kBq/mL in the background. MLSS showed higher uptake in the cold areas relative to TFSS. Mean recovery coefficients (RC
conclusionMLSS provided results of high image quality comparable to the standard method of choice, TFSS, in the clinical routine. The phantom study showed that MLSS provided uptake values accurately relative to the known activity concentration, however less accurate within the cold sphere and insert. MLSS was found to provide robust results across a large patient cohort and is suggested as a suitable substitution for TFSS in the PET image reconstruction process.
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.