Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42455379›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2026

Image optimization for low-dose

Quinton J Keigley, Leah C Henze Bancroft, Kelley Salem, Kuan-Hao Su, Abolfazl Mehranian, Matthew G Spangler-Bickell, Alan B McMillan, Scott B Perlman, Roberta M Strigel, Tyler J Bradshaw and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Quinton J KeigleyDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Leah C Henze BancroftDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Kelley SalemDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Kuan-Hao SuGE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abolfazl MehranianGE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA.
Matthew G Spangler-BickellGE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA.
Alan B McMillanDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Scott B PerlmanDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Roberta M StrigelDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Tyler J BradshawDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Samuel A HurleyDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA.
Lu MaoDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 610 Walnut Street, Madison, WI, 53726, USA.
Amy M FowlerDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792, USA. afowler@uwhealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1172-1618

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Christian Capitini · 1985 to 2026
$142.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520NIH NIH P30 CA014520NIH HHS NIH P30 CA014520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron emission tomography with magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) provides noninvasive molecular characterization of breast cancer and has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, staging, treatment response assessment, and guide personalized care. Reducing the radiation dose from 2-deoxy-2-[

methodsThis pilot study was a secondary analysis of a single-institution prospective study of

resultsCompared to SLD, DN datasets scored better for artifacts, perceived signal-to-noise ratio, image sharpness/resolution, and overall image quality (p < 0.001). Compared to full-dose images, DN scored better than SLD for diagnostic image quality (p < 0.001) and lesion conspicuity (p = 0.002). For diagnostic image quality, DN was equivalent or slightly inferior to full-dose images in 89.9% (62/69) of reads. Readers preferred DN (76.8%; 53/69) to SLD (4.3%; 3/69), and both were preferred equally in 10.1% (7/69) of reads. Compared to SLD, quantitative image noise was less in DN images (p < 0.0001). Agreement was excellent between all datasets for tumor SUV

conclusionsAcceptable image quality may be achieved with low-dose

Indexed as

Breast cancerDenoisingDose reductionImage qualityReader study

Identifiers

PMID42455379
PMCPMC13654906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.