Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42536328›Full record

ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026

Differential performance of statistical versus machine learning methods in partial volume correction in oncologic F18-FDG PET/CT scanning.

Hanan K Metwally, Hesham A Gawaad, Magdy M Khalil

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 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

3 authors.

Hanan K MetwallyMedical Biophysics, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hesham A GawaadKasr Al-Ainy University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, NEMROCK, Cairo, Egypt.
Magdy M KhalilSchool of Applied Health Sciences, Badr University in Cairo (BUC) and Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Capital University (Formerly Helwan University), Cairo, Egypt. magdy.khalil100@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2087-5229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partial volume effects (PVE) in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging introduce quantification inaccuracies, particularly in small or heterogeneous lesions, necessitating precise correction methodologies. This study systematically evaluates the performance of statistical versus machine learning approaches in partial volume correction (PVC) across multiple PET reconstruction algorithms, including TrueX, TrueX + TOF, and Iterative + TOF. Phantom experiments were conducted across a broad range of lesion-to-background contrast ratios and lesion sizes to derive and validate exponential recovery coefficient (RC) fitting models. Additionally, advanced machine learning algorithms, including Random Forest, Support Vector Regression, and Gradient Boosting, were implemented to enhance PVC accuracy. The results demonstrate that Iterative + TOF reconstruction yielded the most consistent RC estimates, while machine learning-based PVC significantly outperformed traditional exponential fitting in minimizing residual errors. Among the machine learning models, Random Forest exhibited the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) and highest coefficient of determination (R²), indicating superior predictive accuracy and robustness. These findings underscore the potential of machine learning-driven PVC methodologies for standardizing PET quantification, thereby improving lesion characterization, therapy response assessment, and multi-center data harmonization.

Indexed as

Partial Volume CorrectionPositron Emission Tomography-Computed TomographyRecovery CoefficientStandardized Uptake Value.

Identifiers

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.