Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer

Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C. C., Rosenzweig, K. E., Squire, O. D., Braban, L. E., Ford, E., Sidhu, K., Mageras, G. S., Larson, S. M., Humm, J. L.·2002·Medical Physics

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) has shown an increase in both sensitivity and specificity over computed tomography (CT) in lung cancer. However, motion artifacts in the fluorodioxydoglucose (FDG) PET images caused by respiration persists to be an important factor in degrading PET image quality and quantification. Motion artifacts lead to two major effects: First, it affects the accuracy of quantitation, producing a reduction of the measured standard uptake value (SUV). Second, the apparent lesion volume is overestimated. Both impact upon the usage of PET images for radiation treatment planning. The first affects the visibility, or contrast, of the lesion. The second results in an increase in the planning target volume, and consequently a greater radiation dose to the normal tissues. One way to compensate for this effect is by applying a multiple‐frame capture technique. The PET data are then acquired in synchronization with the respiratory motion. Reduction in smearing due to gating was investigated in both phantoms and patient studies. Phantom studies showed a dependence of the reduction in smearing on the lesion size, the motion amplitude, and the number of bins used for data acquisition. These studies also showed an improvement in the target‐to‐background ratio, and a more accurate measurement of the SUV. When applied to one patient, respiratory gating showed a 28% reduction in the total lesion volume, and a 56.5% increase in the SUV. This study was conducted as a proof of principle that a gating technique can effectively reduce motion artifacts in PET image acquisition.

Overview

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 · 10.1118/1.1448824

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C. C., Rosenzweig, K. E., Squire, O. D., Braban, L. E., Ford, E., Sidhu, K., Mageras, G. S., Larson, S. M., & Humm, J. L.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-02-21
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
366-371
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2152683426
Cited by
297
References
0
FWCI
10.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.1448824
The paper
Nehmeh, S. A., Erdi, Y. E., Ling, C. C., Rosenzweig, K. E., Squire, O. D., Braban, L. E., Ford, E., Sidhu, K., Mageras, G. S., Larson, S. M., & Humm, J. L. (2002). Effect of respiratory gating on reducing lung motion artifacts in PET imaging of lung cancer. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1448824

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.