Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET

Yan, Jianhua, Chu-Shern, Jason Lim, Loi, Hoi Yin, Khor, Lih Kin, Sinha, Arvind K., Quek, Swee Tian, Tham, Ivan W.K., Townsend, David·2015·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Evaluation of tumor heterogeneity based on texture parameters has recently attracted much interest in the PET imaging community. However, the impact of reconstruction settings on texture parameters is unclear, especially relating to time-of-flight and point-spread function modeling. Their effects on 55 texture features (TFs) and 6 features based on first-order statistics (FOS) were investigated. Standardized uptake value (SUV) measures were also evaluated as peak SUV (SUVpeak), maximum SUV, and mean SUV (SUVmean). METHODS: This study retrospectively recruited 20 patients with lesions in the lung who underwent whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT. The coefficient of variation (COV) of each feature across different reconstructions was calculated. RESULTS: SUVpeak, SUVmean, 18 TFs, and 1 FOS were the most robust (COV ≤ 5%) whereas skewness, cluster shade, and zone percentage were the least robust (COV > 20%) with respect to reconstruction algorithms using default settings. Heterogeneity parameters had different sensitivities to iteration number. Twenty-four parameters including SUVpeak and SUVmean exhibited variation with a COV less than 5%; 28 parameters, including maximum SUV, showed variation with a COV in the range of 5%-10%. In addition, skewness, cluster shade, and zone percentage were the most sensitive to iteration number. In terms of sensitivity to full width at half maximum (FWHM), 15 TFs and 1 FOS had the best performance with a COV less than 5%, whereas SUVpeak and SUVmean had a COV between 5% and 10%. Grid size had the largest impact on image features, which was demonstrated by only 11 features, including SUVpeak and SUVmean, having a COV less than 10%. CONCLUSION: Different image features have different sensitivities to reconstruction settings. Iteration number and FWHM of the gaussian filter have a similar impact on the image features. Grid size has a larger impact on the features than iteration number and FWHM. The features that exhibited large variations such as skewness in FOS, cluster shade, and zone percentage should be used with caution. The entropy in FOS, difference entropy, inverse difference normalized, inverse difference moment normalized, low gray-level run emphasis, high gray-level run emphasis, and low gray-level zone emphasis are the most robust features.

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.115.156927

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Yan, J., Chu-Shern, J. L., Loi, H. Y., Khor, L. K., Sinha, A. K., Quek, S. T., Tham, I. W. K., & Townsend, D.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2015-07-30
Volume
56
Issue
11
Pages
1667-1673
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2173608465
Cited by
242
References
5
FWCI
19.71
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: Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.115.156927
The paper
Yan, J., Chu-Shern, J. L., Loi, H. Y., Khor, L. K., Sinha, A. K., Quek, S. T., Tham, I. W. K., & Townsend, D. (2015). Impact of Image Reconstruction Settings on Texture Features in 18F-FDG PET. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.156927

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.