Cited by 53Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsRadiation Dose and Imaging

Improvement in PET/CT image quality in overweight patients with PSF and TOF

Open access
Taniguchi, Takafumi, Akamatsu, Go, Kasahara, Yukiko, Mitsumoto, Katsuhiko, Baba, Shingo, Tsutsui, Yuji, Himuro, Kazuhiko, Mikasa, Shohei +2 more·2015·Annals of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the point spread function (PSF) and time of flight (TOF) on PET/CT images of overweight patients in relation to the iteration number and the acquisition time. Methods: This study consisted of a phantom study and a clinical study. The NEMA IEC body phantom and a 40 cm diameter large phantom (LG phantom) simulating an overweight patient were used in this study. Both phantoms were filled with 18 F solution with a sphere to background ratio of 4:1. The PET data were reconstructed with the baseline ordered-subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) algorithm, with the OSEM + PSF model, with the OSEM + TOF model and with the OSEM + PSF + TOF model. The clinical study was a retrospective analysis of 66 patients who underwent 18 F-FDG PET/CT. The image quality was evaluated using the background variability (coefficient of variance, CV phantom and CV liver) and the contrast (CONT HOT and SNR). Results: In phantom study, the CV phantom of the LG phantom was higher than that of the NEMA phantom. The PSF decreased the CV phantom of the LG phantom to the NEMA phantom level. The TOF information accelerated the CV phantom plateau earlier. The best relationship between the CV phantom and the CONT HOT was observed for the OSEM + PSF + TOF. In clinical study, the combination of PSF and TOF decreased the CV liver for overweight patients to that for normal weight patients while it increased the SNR similarly between two patient groups. Conclusion: The combination of the PSF and TOF correction improved the image quality of the LG phantom and overweight patients.

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/s12149-014-0912-z

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • PSF compensation can increase the SNR and subjectively rated image quality.

    “PSF compensation can also increase the SNR [157,158] and thereby the subjectively rated image quality [157,161,162].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [158]

    The Discussion reports improved SNR in images reconstructed with PSF and TOF information, with the greatest improvement from their combination. The Methods describe observer ratings of phantom-sphere visibility, but the paper does not show that increased SNR caused an improvement in subjectively rated image quality. Its clinical image-quality assessment used quantitative measures. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Compared to standard OSEM reconstruction, OSEM with TOF shows improved noise characteristics.

    “Compared to standard ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction, OSEM with TOF shows improved noise characteristics [49,94,156,157,158].”

    From Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation (2022) · cites this paper as [158]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taniguchi, T., Akamatsu, G., Kasahara, Y., Mitsumoto, K., Baba, S., Tsutsui, Y., Himuro, K., Mikasa, S., Kidera, D., & Sasaki, M.
Affiliations
Kyushu University (JP)
Corresponding author
Sasaki, Masayuki
Venue
Annals of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2014-09-26
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
71-77
ISSN
  • 0914-7187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1864-6433
OpenAlex
W1987671573
Cited by
53
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
point spread function correction, time-of-flight correction, overweight patients, 18F-FDG PET, OSEM, background variation, coefficient of variation, signal-to-noise ratio
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiopharmaceuticals, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography, Overweight, 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