ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Evaluation of precalculated attenuation correction map for preclinical cardiac PET/MR using a
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. 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.
- Multinuclear NMR and MRI Beyond Proton Imaging: Principles, Contrast Mechanisms, and Applications in Materials and Biomedicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn preclinical PET/MR, attenuation correction (AC) uses a mix of pre-calculated attenuation maps accounting for animal cradles and organ segmentation obtained from whole-body MR using a volume coil. The development of X-nuclei such as MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed a 3D-printed cradle (DC) embedding a 20 mm surface coil made of PLA (polylactic acid), coated with a thin cap of epoxy. An attenuation map was generated using computed tomography and integrated into PET reconstruction. To validate AC, we compared PET images to those obtained using a conventional cradle and a volume coil (CC). Various image quality metrics were evaluated in various phantoms including a NEMA NU-4 (recovery coefficients (RC), uniformity (%STD), spillover ratio (SOR)), a homogenous phantom (slice and inter-slice uniformity) and a resolution phantom (spatial resolution). Finally, cardiac
resultsRC obtained using DC and CC configurations were not significantly different. However, the %STD was significantly increased with the DC (5.07 ± 0.18) vs. CC (3.29 ± 0.53, p = 0.0002) leading to a decreased CNR with DC. The SOR was similar between the two cradles. In homogenous phantom, there was a non-significant 1.58% underestimation of the PET signal near the surface coil and 5% overestimation on the opposite side when using the DC vs. CC. Uniformity between slice was significantly higher in DC than in CC (3.15 ± 1.2% for DC vs. 2.24 ± 0.7% for CC, p = 0.02) while uniformity inter-slice was similar in DC and CC (2.25 ± 0.83% for DC vs. 1.93 ± 0.44% for CC, p = 0.2). Spatial resolution was similar between DC and CC (axial: 1.80 vs. 1.63 mm, tangential: 1.62 vs. 1.79 mm and radial resolution: 1.53 vs. 1.76 mm for DC and CC respectively). In-vivo, cardiac standardized uptake values were similar between the two cradles (3.55 ± 0.89 and 3.59 ± 1.02 for DC and CC respectively, p = 0.81).
conclusionPre-calculated attenuation map using a standardized positioning of MR surface coil provided similar
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.