ArticleIEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences2025
Randoms Estimation for Long Axial Field-of-View PET.
Article in IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The high sensitivity of long axial field-of-view (AFOV) PET scanners has enabled studies over a wide range of count rates and count densities. However, these systems have a large axial acceptance angle that necessitates a wide coincidence window to capture the oblique true coincidences. In addition, the measured delays sinogram is sparse and noisy. We studied four methods of randoms estimation on a long AFOV system to assess their impact on accuracy and image noise: measured delays using a delayed coincidence window (RD), 2D Casey averaging of measured delays (RD-smooth), 2D average of measured delays (RD-ave - the current default method on the PennPET Explorer), and estimation of randoms from singles (RS). We looked at cases with varying count densities, randoms fractions, and non-pure positron emitters. A positive bias observed at low randoms counts for the RD and RD-smooth methods was not seen with the RD-ave or RS methods. For all cases, quantitative results with RS agreed to within 2.5% of the RD-ave method, while RD and RD-smooth estimates showed differences of 5-49%, with larger differences in areas of low uptake. The RS method is a practical technique for list-mode data and list-mode reconstruction by reducing the size of stored list events. It also avoids small approximations in the RD-ave method. For long AFOV systems, estimating randoms from singles is a practical and accurate method.
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.