ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Human subject study of a transmission-aided attenuation correction for precision PET neuroimaging.
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.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPET data-driven attenuation correction (AC) methods, including deep learning, are attractive options for quantitative brain imaging on CT-less brain PET systems and low-dose PET/CT. However, current schemes have performance and practical limitations. We previously developed a CT-less transmission-aided AC that combines coincidences from a weak positron source, and the patient, to estimate attenuation with physics alone. In this work, we aim to optimize and assess this new AC method during human [
methodsOur approach, TRansmission-aided μ-map reconstruction (TRU) AC, includes 1) a low-profile and physically fixed transmission source filled with ~ 14 MBq of
resultsTRU-AC PET showed qualitatively strong agreement with CT-AC. For the VOI analysis, absolute relative error in standardized uptake values for TRU-AC was within 3.6%, across all brain structures and patients. Normalized root mean square error of activity bias for TRU-AC was 1.8%, and voxel-wise noise in the cerebellum showed a very minor increase of 0.2%. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that TRU-AC and CT-AC have statistically significant agreement, assuming a maximum allowed difference of ± 5%.
conclusionsTRU-AC enables quantitative PET for human neuroimaging. This approach may particularly benefit exams where deep learning-based AC schemes show reduced performance, including those focused on radiotracer development, new patient cohorts, and/or pathologies that often lack sufficient training data.
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.