ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Evaluation of regularization factor and attenuation correction method of Q.Clear reconstruction for brain PET/MR in epileptic patients.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo identify suitable regularization factor β and attenuation correction (AC) method for Q.Clear reconstruction in brain [
methodsWe retrospectively collected 27 PET/MR brain images from patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. PET images were reconstructed using both ordered subset-expectation maximization and Q.Clear reconstruction (β from 50 to 600) with three AC methods: Atlas-based AC (Atlas-AC), Partial Head-based AC (PH-AC), and Zero Echo Time-based AC (ZTE-AC). Image quality was assessed using lesion-to-background (LBR) ratio, normalized standard deviation (NSD) ratio, SUV
resultsQ.Clear reconstruction with β values of 50 to 600 significantly increased LBR and decreased NSD compared to OSEM. β value of 300 served as a practical operating point for the three AC methods. ZTE-AC had the largest LBR and lower NSD values, PH-AC method had the lowest NSD and relatively high LBR, while Atlas-AC showed moderate performance. Comparisons of SUV
conclusionsQ.Clear reconstruction can improve lesion contrast and reduce noise compared to OSEM. ZTE-AC yielded the highest lesion contrast and LBR among three AC methods, PH-AC resulted in the lowest background noise, and Atlas-AC showed balanced but suboptimal performance. These findings offer practical guidance in selecting the suitable β value and AC method for optimized brain PET/MR imaging in patients with epilepsy.
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.