ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Q.Clear reconstruction shortening the scanning time for
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
purposeAs a tracer in brain PET imaging for diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD), the application of 11C-methyl-N-2β-carbomethoxy-3β-(4-fluorophenyl)-tropane (11C-CFT) is limited due to its short half-life. This study aims to explore the feasibility of using Q.Clear reconstruction to reduce the scanning time of 11C-CFT brain PET imaging.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 43 patients who underwent 11C-CFT PET/MRI examination. Their image data was reconstructed using classical ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) with 20 min and Q.Clear with 5, 10, 15, 20 min of scanning time (QC05, QC10, QC15, QC20). Subsequently, subjective quality assessment and semi-quantitative assessment were employed across the five reconstruction groups. Subjective image assessment included overall image quality, image noise and lesion depiction. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), signal-to-background ratio (SBR) and dopamine transporters (DAT) binding rate were measured in semi-quantitative assessment.
resultsIn subjective assessment, all Q.Clear groups showed image quality and noise comparable or superior to OSEM. However, QC05 group received significantly lower overall image quality scores than QC10, QC15, QC20 (all P < 0.05). In several QC05 cases, both readers noted conspicuous signal absence with locational and uptake inconsistencies versus OSEM, leading to diagnostic discrepancy. By contrast, QC10, QC15, QC20 provided lesion visibility equivalent to the OSEM reference. Semi‑quantitative analysis indicated no significant differences among all groups in SNR, SBR, or DAT binding rate (all P > 0.05).
conclusionThe Q.Clear reconstruction demonstrates reliable performance in the quantitative assessment of 11C-CFT brain PET imaging, therefore can shorten scanning time to at least 10 min under the premise of meeting clinical diagnostic requirements.
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.