ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Deep learning-enhanced data-driven gating improves FDG PET/CT clinical image quality.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. 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
backgroundRespiratory motion can affect PET image quality. One way to reduce motion effects is respiratory gating. The objective of this study, as we seek to further optimise Data-Driven Gating (DDG) algorithms, is to compare two types of DDG phase-gating methodologies: Method-1 has fixed quiescent period offset while Method-2 has an optimised offset for each cycle based on the amplitude of the waveform. The use of Deep Learning is becoming more prevalent for medical images. A previously validated Deep Learning Enhancement (DLE) algorithm will be assessed in conjunction with DDG PET data as an additional method to improve clinical images impacted by respiratory motion. Six reconstructions were assessed: Ungated 3 min (Clinical Standard), Ungated 6 min (Gold Standard), both gating methods with BSREM reconstructions, and both gating methods with OSEM + DLE. These six reconstructions were compared with data from the NEMA IQ phantom, placed on the QUASAR motion platform. Contrast Recovery (CR), Background Variability (BV) and Contrast to Noise Ratio (CNR) were calculated across 6 hot spheres. The same six reconstructions were assessed for 39 FDG PET-CT patient scans with lesions in the lungs or liver. All patients were identified as “high motion” patients with lesions in the region of interest. An experienced radiologist ranked the images and scored them on a 5-point Likert Scale for lesion detectability, diagnostic confidence, and image quality. Lesion maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) and liver background noise were analysed across all images.
resultsThe DLE methods with both gating methods demonstrated significantly better CNR than the ungated images in the phantom data (p<0.05). The performance of DLE with DDG data was also supported by the clinician’s preferences and decreased liver noise across the patient reconstructions. Both phantom and patient data indicated a slight preference for Method 2 for patients with irregular breathing.
conclusionsDLE algorithm effectively produces BSREM-like images from OSEM inputs with data-driven gated data. Clinician preference strongly indicated a preference for the two DDG DLE methods (p<0.05). Preliminary results may indicate an improved image quality with cycle-specific phase offset gated images for patients with irregular breathing patterns characterized by breathing period variance.
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.