ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Reconstruction-dependent differences in brain [18F]FDG PET: a large-scale same-acquisition comparison of Q.Clear and VUE Point FX.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether Q.Clear and VUE Point FX (VPFX) reconstructions obtained from the same brain [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([18 F]FDG PET) acquisition are quantitatively interchangeable, and to characterise the regional, reference-region and noise-texture dependence of any differences.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed paired Q.Clear and VPFX reconstructions from 1,145 clinical brain PET folders. The reviewed protocol used a 10-min acquisition, Q.Clear QCFX-S with beta 150, SharpIR and no z-axis filter, and VPFX-S with 3 iterations, 16 subsets and a 4.0-mm filter. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine metadata were audited, and 1,022 readable same-examination pairs were processed in MATLAB R2026a and statistical parametric mapping version 25. A common transform estimated from mean(Q.Clear, VPFX) was applied to both reconstructions. Absolute and standardised uptake value ratio (SUVR) differences normalised to whole brain, cerebellum and pons were assessed voxel-wise and in Automated Anatomical Labelling atlas 3 regions. DICOM-derived local high-frequency and robust global coefficients of variation (CVs) were also compared.
resultsQ.Clear increased the whole-brain, cerebellar and pontine reference means by 0.953%, 0.595% and 0.818%, respectively. Absolute regional differences were heterogeneous; after normalisation, most cortical and limbic Q.Clear-minus-VPFX differences were negative. The medial temporal whole-brain-normalised difference was - 0.00625 (Cohen dz -2.09), equivalent to approximately - 0.69% at an illustrative VPFX SUVR of 0.90. Covariate-adjusted voxel-wise T maps were nearly identical to no-covariate maps (r = 0.9996-0.9999; sign concordance > = 99.96%). Local high-frequency CV was lower with VPFX in 689 pairs and with Q.Clear in 333, whereas robust global CV was lower with Q.Clear in 903 pairs, with one tie.
conclusionsQ.Clear and VPFX were not quantitatively interchangeable under the evaluated protocol. The study establishes protocol-specific reconstruction-dependent differences, not the direction of quantitative accuracy, because no ground truth was available. Harmonised reconstruction and validation are required when quantitative brain PET data are compared or pooled.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42678670What 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.