Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 584

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 access
Karp, Joel S., Surti, Suleman, Daube-Witherspoon, Margaret E., Muehllehner, Gerd·2008·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.107.044834

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

See all 584

Metadata

Authors
Karp, J. S., Surti, S., Daube-Witherspoon, M. E., & Muehllehner, G.
Venue
Journal 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.