Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and ImagingCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain 18F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera

Open access
Salvadori, Julien, Imbert, Laetitia, Perrin, Mathieu, Karcher, Gilles, Lamiral, Zohra, Marie, Pierre-Yves, Verger, Antoine·2019·EJNMMI Research
DOI 10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5PMC PMC6626093
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The quality of phantom images was previously shown to be higher on digital (Vereos Philips®) compared to analog PET (Ingenuity Philips®) cameras. This study aimed to determine the extent to which this difference still remains significant on normal brain 18 F-FDG PET images. Relative noise and contrast as well as border sharpness (a spatial resolution index) of central (striata) and peripheral (occiput) gray-matter structures were compared between 10 sets of normal brain 18 F-FDG PET images recorded and reconstructed on digital and analog last-generation PET cameras, together with a subjective visual analysis of image quality provided by experienced physicians. Compared with analog PET, digital PET provided marked improvements in image quality parameters. The median relative noise was decreased (− 22%), while gray/white-matter contrast was increased (+ 27%/+ 41% for central/peripheral gray-matter structures), with these results being consistent with visual analysis. In addition, a clear enhancement in image sharpness was further documented for digital PET owing to the possible use of a 1-mm 3 voxel size (+ 24%/+ 21%). On normal brain 18 F-FDG images and compared with a last-generation analog PET, the fully digital PET camera offers marked improvements in image noise and contrast, as well as significant potential for further enhancing spatial resolution.

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 · 10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Contrast recovery coefficients determined in percentages for the 10-mm hot sphere, with 2-mm voxel size for analog and digital PET and with 1-mm voxel size for digital PET and displayed according to relative noise (coefficient of variation in the background, in percentages) for each number of iterations. Black symbols and dashed arrows represent the numbers of iterations considered to reach sufficiently high levels of convergence. This convergence was reached at 5 iterations for the digital PET with either 1-mm or 2-mm voxels size and at 10 iterations for the analog PET
Fig. 1 Contrast recovery coefficients determined in percentages for the 10-mm hot sphere, with 2-mm voxel size for analog and digital PET and with 1-mm voxel size for digital PET and displayed according to relative noise (coefficient of variation in the background, in percentages) for each number of iterations. Black symbols and dashed arrows represent the numbers of iterations considered to reach sufficiently high levels of convergence. This convergence was reached at 5 iterations for the digital PET with either 1-mm or 2-mm voxels size and at 10 iterations for the analog PETCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Schematic representations of methods used on axial 18F-FDG brain PET images to a quantify the contrast between central (striata) or peripheral (occiput) gray-matter structures and a white matter structure (semi-oval center), b determine the sharpness index through the maximal slope of count profiles obtained perpendicularly to the gray/white-matter interfaces of striata and occiput and further normalized to the maximal curve value, and c quantify the noise level within the semi-oval area
Fig. 2 Schematic representations of methods used on axial 18F-FDG brain PET images to a quantify the contrast between central (striata) or peripheral (occiput) gray-matter structures and a white matter structure (semi-oval center), b determine the sharpness index through the maximal slope of count profiles obtained perpendicularly to the gray/white-matter interfaces of striata and occiput and further normalized to the maximal curve value, and c quantify the noise level within the semi-oval areaCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Left panels: box-plots for a gray/white-matter contrast, b sharpness, and c relative noise index obtained with current 2-mm reconstruction processes of analog and digital PET images and with a 1-mm reconstruction process developed for digital PET images. Right panel: corresponding parameters provided by a visual analysis from experienced physicians (sum-scores for contrast, spatial resolution, and noise level)
Fig. 3 Left panels: box-plots for a gray/white-matter contrast, b sharpness, and c relative noise index obtained with current 2-mm reconstruction processes of analog and digital PET images and with a 1-mm reconstruction process developed for digital PET images. Right panel: corresponding parameters provided by a visual analysis from experienced physicians (sum-scores for contrast, spatial resolution, and noise level)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Gallery of axial brain 18F-FDG PET images obtained with analog PET and a current reconstruction method using a 2-mm voxel size (n = 10) (upper row), with digital PET and either a comparable reconstruction method with 2-mm voxel size (n = 10) (middle row) or a high-resolution reconstruction method with 1-mm voxel size (n = 10) (lower row)
Fig. 4 Gallery of axial brain 18F-FDG PET images obtained with analog PET and a current reconstruction method using a 2-mm voxel size (n = 10) (upper row), with digital PET and either a comparable reconstruction method with 2-mm voxel size (n = 10) (middle row) or a high-resolution reconstruction method with 1-mm voxel size (n = 10) (lower row)CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. NationalElectricalManufacturersAssociation. NEMA NU-2 2012: performance measurement of positron emission tomography. 2013.

Cited by

See all 44

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Salvadori, J., Imbert, L., Perrin, M., Karcher, G., Lamiral, Z., Marie, P.-Y., & Verger, A.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy (FR)
Corresponding author
Salvadori, Julien
ORCID
Venue
EJNMMI Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-07-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
61-61
ISSN
2191-219X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5
PMC
PMC6626093
OpenAlex
W2960451160
Cited by
44
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • EJNMMI Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
digital PET, 18F-FDG PET, neuroimaging, image quality, image noise, gray-white matter contrast, spatial resolution, voxel size, ingenuity

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: Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain 18F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5
The paper
Salvadori, J., Imbert, L., Perrin, M., Karcher, G., Lamiral, Z., Marie, P.-Y., & Verger, A. (2019). Head-to-head comparison of image quality between brain 18F-FDG images recorded with a fully digital versus a last-generation analog PET camera. EJNMMI Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0526-5

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.