ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Improving data-driven gated (DDG) PET and CT registration in thoracic lesions: a comparison of AI registration and DDG 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.
- Validation of a Deep-Learning Coregistration Framework for Long-Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT Using Low-Radiation-Exposure Protocols Across Various Tracers.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMisregistration between CT and PET can result in mis-localization and inaccurate quantification of the tracer uptake in PET. Data-driven gated (DDG) CT can correct registration and quantification but requires a radiation dose of 1.3 mSv and 1 min of acquisition time. AI registration (AIR) does not require an additional CT and has been validated to improve registration and reduce the 'banana' misregistration artifacts around the diaphragm. We aimed to compare a validated AIR and DDG CT in registration and quantification of avid thoracic lesions misregistered in DDG PET scans.
methodsThirty PET/CT patient data (23 with
resultsDDG CT outperformed AIR in misregistration correction and quantification of avid thoracic lesions (1.16 ± 0.45 cm). Most lesions (46/51, 90%) showed improved registration from DDG CT relative to AIR, with 10% (5/51) being similar between AIR and DDG CT. The lesions in the baseline CT were an average of 2.06 ± 1.0 cm from their corresponding lesions in the DDG CT, while those in the AIR CT were an average of 0.97 ± 0.54 cm away. AIR significantly improved lesion registration compared to the baseline CT (P < 0.0001). SUV
conclusionsDDG CT outperformed AIR in both localization and quantification of the thoracic avid lesions. AIR improved registration of the misregistered PET/CT. Registered lymph nodes could be falsely misregistered by AIR. AIR-induced distortion of the rib cage can also negatively impact image quality. Further research on AIR's accuracy in modeling true patient respiratory motion without introducing new misregistration or anatomical distortion is warranted.
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.