Cited by 66Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging

Investigating the state-of-the-art in whole-body MR-based attenuation correction: an intra-individual, inter-system, inventory study on three clinical PET/MR systems

Open access
Beyer, Thomas, Lassen, Martin L., Boellaard, Ronald, Delso, Gaspar, Yaqub, Maqsood, Sattler, Bernhard, Quick, Harald H.·2016·Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We assess inter- and intra-subject variability of magnetic resonance (MR)-based attenuation maps (MRμMaps) of human subjects for state-of-the-art positron emission tomography (PET)/MR imaging systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four healthy male subjects underwent repeated MR imaging with a Siemens Biograph mMR, Philips Ingenuity TF and GE SIGNA PET/MR system using product-specific MR sequences and image processing algorithms for generating MRμMaps. Total lung volumes and mean attenuation values in nine thoracic reference regions were calculated. Linear regression was used for comparing lung volumes on MRμMaps. Intra- and inter-system variability was investigated using a mixed effects model. RESULTS: Intra-system variability was seen for the lung volume of some subjects, (p = 0.29). Mean attenuation values across subjects were significantly different (p < 0.001) due to different segmentations of the trachea. Differences in the attenuation values caused noticeable intra-individual and inter-system differences that translated into a subsequent bias of the corrected PET activity values, as verified by independent simulations. CONCLUSION: Significant differences of MRμMaps generated for the same subjects but different PET/MR systems resulted in differences in attenuation correction factors, particularly in the thorax. These differences currently limit the quantitative use of PET/MR in multi-center imaging studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10334-015-0505-4

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several sources of error exist in MR-AC, including extracorporeal components, incorrect attenuation correction factors for bone and lung tissue, incorrect segmentation, and MR image truncation.

    “However, several sources of error exist, including extracorporeal components such as headphones, dense hair or MR coils [59], incorrect attenuation correction factors for bone and lung tissue [60], incorrect segmentation of such compartments, and MR image truncation [61].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [61]

  • Inter-vendor differences in MR-AC maps can lead to SUV differences in phantom spheres of 10-20%.

    “In such phantoms, inter-vendor differences in MR-AC maps [61] can lead to SUV differences in phantom spheres of 10–20% [58].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [61]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Deller T, Delso G, Grant A, et al (2014) PET NEMA Perfor- mance Measurements for a SiPM-Based Time-of-Flight PET/ MR System" IEEE Medical Imaging Conference, Seattle #1618

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beyer, T., Lassen, M. L., Boellaard, R., Delso, G., Yaqub, M., Sattler, B., & Quick, H. H.
Affiliations
  • Vienna General Hospital (AT)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • University Hospital Zurich (CH)
  • Gemeente Amsterdam (NL)
  • University Hospital Leipzig (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Beyer, Thomas
Venue
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
Published
2016-01-06
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
75-87
ISSN
  • 0968-5243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1352-8661
OpenAlex
W2229540381
Cited by
66
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Keywords
MR-based attenuation correction, PET/MR, within-person variability, lung volume, attenuation map
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lung, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Reproducibility of Results, Positron-Emission Tomography, Whole Body Imaging, Multimodal Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review