Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 712

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tissue Classification as a Potential Approach for Attenuation Correction in Whole-Body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT Data

Open access
Martinez-Möller, Axel, Souvatzoglou, Michael, Delso, Gaspar, Bundschuh, Ralph A., Chefd'hotel, Christophe, Ziegler, Sibylle I., Navab, Nassir, Schwaiger, Markus, Nekolla, Stephan G.·2009·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Attenuation correction (AC) of whole-body PET data in combined PET/MRI tomographs is expected to be a technical challenge. In this study, a potential solution based on a segmented attenuation map is proposed and evaluated in clinical PET/CT cases. METHODS: Segmentation of the attenuation map into 4 classes (background, lungs, fat, and soft tissue) was hypothesized to be sufficient for AC purposes. The segmentation was applied to CT-based attenuation maps from (18)F-FDG PET/CT oncologic examinations of 35 patients with 52 (18)F-FDG-avid lesions in the lungs (n = 15), bones (n = 21), and neck (n = 16). The standardized uptake values (SUVs) of the lesions were determined from PET images reconstructed with nonsegmented and segmented attenuation maps, and an experienced observer interpreted both PET images with no knowledge of the attenuation map status. The feasibility of the method was also evaluated with 2 patients who underwent both PET/CT and MRI. RESULTS: The use of a segmented attenuation map resulted in average SUV changes of 8% +/- 3% (mean +/- SD) for bone lesions, 4% +/- 2% for neck lesions, and 2% +/- 3% for lung lesions. The largest SUV change was 13.1%, for a lesion in the pelvic bone. There were no differences in the clinical interpretations made by the experienced observer with both types of attenuation maps. CONCLUSION: A segmented attenuation map with 4 classes derived from CT data had only a small effect on the SUVs of (18)F-FDG-avid lesions and did not change the interpretation for any patient. This approach appears to be practical and valid for MRI-based AC.

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.108.054726

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 712

Metadata

Authors
Martinez-Möller, A., Souvatzoglou, M., Delso, G., Bundschuh, R. A., Chefd'hotel, C., Ziegler, S. I., Navab, N., Schwaiger, M., & Nekolla, S. G.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2009-03-16
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
520-526
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2167157872
Cited by
712
References
1
FWCI
16.91
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: Tissue Classification as a Potential Approach for Attenuation Correction in Whole-Body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.108.054726
The paper
Martinez-Möller, A., Souvatzoglou, M., Delso, G., Bundschuh, R. A., Chefd'hotel, C., Ziegler, S. I., Navab, N., Schwaiger, M., & Nekolla, S. G. (2009). Tissue Classification as a Potential Approach for Attenuation Correction in Whole-Body PET/MRI: Evaluation with PET/CT Data. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.054726

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.