The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Significant improvements have made it possible to add the technology of time-of-flight (TOF) to improve PET, particularly for oncology applications. The goals of this work were to investigate the benefits of TOF in experimental phantoms and to determine how these benefits translate into improved performance for patient imaging. METHODS: In this study we used a fully 3-dimensional scanner with the scintillator lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate and a system timing resolution of approximately 600 ps. The data are acquired in list-mode and reconstructed with a maximum-likelihood expectation maximization algorithm; the system model includes the TOF kernel and corrections for attenuation, detector normalization, randoms, and scatter. The scatter correction is an extension of the model-based single-scatter simulation to include the time domain. Phantom measurements to study the benefit of TOF include 27-cm- and 35-cm-diameter distributions with spheres ranging in size from 10 to 37 mm. To assess the benefit of TOF PET for clinical imaging, patient studies are quantitatively analyzed. RESULTS: The lesion phantom studies demonstrate the improved contrast of the smallest spheres with TOF compared with non-TOF and also confirm the faster convergence of contrast with TOF. These gains are evident from visual inspection of the images as well as a quantitative evaluation of contrast recovery of the spheres and noise in the background. The gains with TOF are higher for larger objects. These results correlate with patient studies in which lesions are seen more clearly and with higher uptake at comparable noise for TOF than with non-TOF. CONCLUSION: TOF leads to a better contrast-versus-noise trade-off than non-TOF but one that is difficult to quantify in terms of a simple sensitivity gain improvement: A single gain factor for TOF improvement does not include the increased rate of convergence with TOF nor does it consider that TOF may converge to a different contrast than non-TOF. The experimental phantom results agree with those of prior simulations and help explain the improved image quality with TOF for patient oncology studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Surti, S., Kuhn, A., Werner, M. E., Perkins, A. E., Kolthammer, J. A., & Karp, J. S. (2007) · PubMed · Cited by 639
Self-citationList-mode likelihood: EM algorithm and image quality estimation demonstrated on 2-D PET
Parra, L., & Barrett, H. H. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.700734 · Cited by 357
Time of flight in PET revisited
Moses, W. W. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · doi:10.1109/tns.2003.817319 · Cited by 336
Time-of-flight positron emission tomography: status relative to conventional PET.
Budinger, T. F. (1983) · PubMed · Cited by 283
Current trends in scintillator detectors and materials
Moses, W. W. (2002) · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment · doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)00955-5 · Cited by 275
PET performance measurements using the NEMA NU 2-2001 standard.
Daube-Witherspoon, M. E., Karp, J. S., Casey, M., DiFilippo, F. P., Hines, H., Muehllehner, G., Simcic, V. J., Stearns, C. W., Adam, L.-E., Kohlmyer, S. G., et al. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 222
Self-citationA Matheematical Model for Positron-Emission Tomography Systems Having Time-of-Flight Measurements
Snyder, D. L., Thomas, L. J., & Ter-Pogossian, M. M. (1981) · IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · doi:10.1109/tns.1981.4332168 · Cited by 217
Medical radioisotope scintigraphy
McCready, V. R. (1970) · The International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/0020-708x(70)90109-2 · Cited by 216
Fast accurate iterative reconstruction for low-statistics positron volume imaging
Reader, A. J., Erlandsson, K., Flower, M. A., & Ott, R. J. (1998) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/43/4/012 · Cited by 190
Tomitani, T. (1981) · IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · doi:10.1109/tns.1981.4335769 · Cited by 181
Cited by
Performance Characteristics of the Digital Biograph Vision PET/CT System
van Sluis, J., de Jong, J., Schaar, J., Noordzij, W., van Snick, P., Dierckx, R., Borra, R., Willemsen, A., & Boellaard, R. (2019) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.215418 · Cited by 484
PET/MRI: Paving the Way for the Next Generation of Clinical Multimodality Imaging Applications
Pichler, B. J., Kolb, A., Nägele, T., & Schlemmer, H.-P. (2010) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.061853 · Cited by 418
Focus on time-of-flight PET: the benefits of improved time resolution
Conti, M. (2011) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1711-y · Cited by 335
Update on time-of-flight PET imaging
Surti, S. (2015) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.145029 · Cited by 303
Self-citationImpact of Time-of-Flight on PET Tumor Detection
Kadrmas, D. J., Casey, M. E., Conti, M., Jakoby, B. W., Lois, C., & Townsend, D. W. (2009) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.109.063016 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Karp, J. S., Surti, S., Daube-Witherspoon, M. E., & Muehllehner, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Nuclear Medicine
- Publisher
- Society of Nuclear Medicine
- Published
- 2008-02-20
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 462-470
- ISSN
- 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-662X
- OpenAlex
- W2148488773
- Cited by
- 584
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 23.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.107.044834
- The paper
- Karp, J. S., Surti, S., Daube-Witherspoon, M. E., & Muehllehner, G. (2008). Benefit of Time-of-Flight in PET: Experimental and Clinical Results. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.044834
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.