ArticleMedical physics2026
Evaluation of motion correction on myocardial [
Article in Medical 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background[ PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of data-driven respiratory motion correction on myocardial image quality and quantitative stability in [
methodsRespiratory motion correction was performed using a vendor-implemented data-driven gating approach (OncoFreeze AI, Siemens Healthineers), which derives motion signals from PET coincidence data without external hardware and applies phase-based binning with motion-compensated reconstruction. [
resultsMotion correction reduced myocardial FWHM on average (global mean decrease ∼0.6 mm), indicating improved spatial resolution and reduced motion-related blurring. Threshold-based segmentation yielded variable uptake and volume estimates due to spillover and saturation effects, whereas the fixed VOI approach demonstrated preserved quantitative uptake with minimal changes in SUVmean (< 1%). Motion correction reduced apparent myocardial volume, consistent with improved myocardial boundary definition. While variability in FWHM and SUV persisted due to redistribution of counts across respiratory bins, the overall effect reflected a balance between reduced motion blur and increased statistical noise.
conclusionsData-driven respiratory motion correction improves myocardial spatial resolution and reduces regional differences in motion-related blurring in [
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.