Cited by 265Medical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and ImagingCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Phantom and Clinical Evaluation of the Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System

Open access

Teoh, Eugene J., McGowan, Daniel R., Macpherson, Ruth E., Bradley, Kevin M., Gleeson, Fergus V.·2015·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

DOI 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301PMC PMC4558942

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Q.Clear, a Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm for PET, was recently introduced by GE Healthcare on their PET scanners to improve clinical image quality and quantification. In this work, we determined the optimum penalization factor (beta) for clinical use of Q.Clear and compared Q.Clear with standard PET reconstructions. METHODS: A National Electrical Manufacturers Association image-quality phantom was scanned on a time-of-flight PET/CT scanner and reconstructed using ordered-subset expectation maximization (OSEM), OSEM with point-spread function (PSF) modeling, and the Q.Clear algorithm (which also includes PSF modeling). Q.Clear was investigated for β (B) values of 100-1,000. Contrast recovery (CR) and background variability (BV) were measured from 3 repeated scans, reconstructed with the different algorithms. Fifteen oncology body (18)F-FDG PET/CT scans were reconstructed using OSEM, OSEM PSF, and Q.Clear using B values of 200, 300, 400, and 500. These were visually analyzed by 2 scorers and scored by rank against a panel of parameters (overall image quality; background liver, mediastinum, and marrow image quality; noise level; and lesion detectability). RESULTS: As β is increased, the CR and BV decreases; Q.Clear generally gives a higher CR and lower BV than OSEM. For the smallest sphere reconstructed with Q.Clear B400, CR is 28.4% and BV 4.2%, with corresponding values for OSEM of 24.7% and 5.0%. For the largest hot sphere, Q.Clear B400 yields a CR of 75.2% and a BV of 3.8%, with corresponding values for OSEM of 64.4% and 4.0%. Scorer 1 and 2 ranked B400 as the preferred reconstruction in 13 of 15 (87%) and 10 of 15 (73%) cases. The least preferred reconstruction was OSEM PSF in all cases. In most cases, lesion detectability was highest ranked for B200, in 9 of 15 (67%) and 10 of 15 (73%), with OSEM PSF ranked lowest. Poor lesion detectability on OSEM PSF was seen in cases of mildly (18)F-FDG-avid mediastinal nodes in lung cancer and small liver metastases due to background noise. Conversely, OSEM PSF was ranked second highest for lesion detectability in most pulmonary nodule evaluation cases. The combined scores confirmed B400 to be the preferred reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Our phantom measurement results demonstrate improved CR and reduced BV when using Q.Clear instead of OSEM. A β value of 400 is recommended for oncology body PET/CT using Q.Clear.

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

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

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.

The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
National electrical manufacturers association
Sokole, E. B., & Cradduck, T. D. (1926) · Journal of the A.I.E.E. · doi:10.1109/jaiee.1926.6537344 · Cited by 860
A Systematic Review of the Factors Affecting Accuracy of SUV Measurements
Adams, M. C., Turkington, T. G., Wilson, J. M., & Wong, T. Z. (2010) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.4923 · Cited by 662
Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Standardized Uptake Values in Clinical Practice and Assessing Response to Therapy
Kinahan, P. E., & Fletcher, J. W. (2010) · Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI · doi:10.1053/j.sult.2010.10.001 · Cited by 631
Statistical methods for tomographic image reconstruction
Geman, S., & McClure, D. E. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 579
Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls
Rahmim, A., Qi, J., & Sossi, V. (2013) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.4800806 · Cited by 371
Globally convergent image reconstruction for emission tomography using relaxed ordered subsets algorithms
Ahn, S., & Fessler, J. A. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2003.812251 · Cited by 345
A concave prior penalizing relative differences for maximum-a-posteriori reconstruction in emission tomography
Nuyts, J. L., Beque, D., Dupont, P. J., & Mortelmans, L. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · doi:10.1109/tns.2002.998681 · Cited by 211
Influence of reconstruction iterations on 18F-FDG PET/CT standardized uptake values.
Jaskowiak, C., Bianco, J. A., Perlman, S. B., & Fine, J. P. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 162
Novel penalised likelihood reconstruction of PET in the assessment of histologically verified small pulmonary nodules
Teoh, E. J., McGowan, D. R., Bradley, K. M., Belcher, E., Black, E., & Gleeson, F. V. (2016) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3832-y · Cited by 109
Self-citation

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

Ma, 2013, Clinical evaluation of penalized likelihood reconstruction in whole-body PET studies, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging., 40, S109
Kenny, 2013, Effect of the GE SharpIR PET reconstruction on contrast convergence and measured SUV values in the NEMA image quality phantom and patients, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging., 40, S209

Sorted by citations

AI applications to medical images: From machine learning to deep learning
Castiglioni, I., Rundo, L., Codari, M., Leo, G. D., Salvatore, C., Interlenghi, M., Gallivanone, F., Cozzi, A., D’Amico, N. C., & Sardanelli, F. (2021) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.02.006 · Cited by 779
EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies
Aide, N., Lasnon, C., Veit-Haibach, P., Sera, T., Sattler, B., & Boellaard, R. (2017) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3740-2 · Cited by 344
Studies of a Next-Generation Silicon-Photomultiplier–Based Time-of-Flight PET/CT System
Hsu, D. F. C., Ilan, E., Peterson, W. T., Uribe, J., Lubberink, M., & Levin, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.189514 · Cited by 241
Quantification, improvement, and harmonization of small lesion detection with state-of-the-art PET
van der Vos, C. S., Koopman, D., Rijnsdorp, S., Arends, A. J., Boellaard, R., van Dalen, J. A., Lubberink, M., Willemsen, A. T. M., & Visser, E. P. (2017) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3727-z · Cited by 206
Recent Advances and Future Progress in PET Instrumentation
Slomka, P. J., Pan, T., & Germano, G. (2015) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2015.09.006 · Cited by 178
Comparison between new-generation SiPM-based and conventional PMT-based TOF-PET/CT
Wagatsuma, K., Miwa, K., Sakata, M., Oda, K., Ono, H., Kameyama, M., Toyohara, J., & Ishii, K. (2017) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.09.124 · Cited by 117
Evaluation of Penalized-Likelihood Estimation Reconstruction on a Digital Time-of-Flight PET/CT Scanner for 18 F-FDG Whole-Body Examinations
Lindström, E., Sundin, A., Trampal, C., Lindsjö, L., Ilan, E., Danfors, T., Antoni, G., Sörensen, J., & Lubberink, M. (2018) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.200790 · Cited by 99
Does a novel penalized likelihood reconstruction of 18F-FDG PET-CT improve signal-to-background in colorectal liver metastases?
Parvizi, N., Franklin, J. M., McGowan, D. R., Teoh, E., Bradley, K. M., & Gleeson, F. V. (2015) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.06.025 · Cited by 91
Self-citation
Phantom-based image quality assessment of clinical 18F-FDG protocols in digital PET/CT and comparison to conventional PMT-based PET/CT
Gnesin, S., Kieffer, C., Zeimpekis, K., Papazyan, J. P., Guignard, R., Prior, J. O., Verdun, F. R., & Lima, T. V. M. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0269-4 · Cited by 83
Effective dose estimation for oncological and neurological PET/CT procedures
Martí-Climent, J. M., Prieto, E., Morán, V., Sancho, L., Rodríguez‐Fraile, M., Arbizu, J., García‐Velloso, M. J., & Richter, J. Á. (2017) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-017-0272-5 · Cited by 78
Performance Characteristics of the Whole-Body Discovery IQ PET/CT System
Reynés-Llompart, G., Gámez-Cenzano, C., Romero-Zayas, I., Rodríguez-Bel, L., Vercher-Conejero, J. L., & Martí-Climent, J. M. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.185561 · Cited by 78
New PET technologies – embracing progress and pushing the limits
Aide, N., Lasnon, C., Kesner, A., Levin, C. S., Buvat, I., Iagaru, A., Hermann, K., Badawi, R. D., Cherry, S. R., Bradley, K. M., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05390-4 · Cited by 73
Self-citation
A review on AI in PET imaging
Matsubara, K., Ibaraki, M., Nemoto, M., Watabe, H., & Kimura, Y. (2022) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-021-01710-8 · Cited by 75
Comparison of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction versus OS-EM for characterization of small pulmonary nodules in oncologic PET/CT
Howard, B. A., Morgan, R., Thorpe, M. P., Turkington, T. G., Oldan, J., James, O. G., & Borges-Neto, S. (2017) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-017-1192-1 · Cited by 70
Image enhancement of whole-body oncology [18F]-FDG PET scans using deep neural networks to reduce noise
Mehranian, A., Wollenweber, S. D., Walker, M. D., Bradley, K. M., Fielding, P. A., Su, K., Johnsen, R., Kotasidis, F. A., Jansen, F. P., & McGowan, D. R. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05478-x · Cited by 69
Self-citation
Reconstructed spatial resolution and contrast recovery with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) for FDG-PET compared to time-of-flight (TOF) with point spread function (PSF)
Rogasch, J. M., Suleiman, S., Hofheinz, F., Bluemel, S., Lukas, M., Amthauer, H., & Furth, C. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-0270-y · Cited by 63
Advances in clinical molecular imaging instrumentation
Hutton, B. F., Erlandsson, K., & Thielemans, K. (2018) · Clinical and Translational Imaging · doi:10.1007/s40336-018-0264-0 · Cited by 67
Data-Driven Respiratory Gating Outperforms Device-Based Gating for Clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT
Walker, M. D., Morgan, A. J., Bradley, K. M., & McGowan, D. R. (2020) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.120.242248 · Cited by 66
Self-citation
What scans we will read: imaging instrumentation trends in clinical oncology
Beyer, T., Bidaut, L. M., Dickson, J. C., Kachelrieß, M., Kiessling, F. M., Leitgeb, R. A., Ma, J., Sundar, L. K. S., Theek, B., & Mawlawi, O. R. (2020) · Cancer Imaging · doi:10.1186/s40644-020-00312-3 · Cited by 75
Image quality and detectability in Siemens Biograph PET/MRI and PET/CT systems—a phantom study
Øen, S. K., Aasheim, L. B., Eikenes, L., & Karlberg, A. M. (2019) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0251-1 · Cited by 64
Clinical evaluation of a block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm in 18F-FDG PET/CT studies
Sah, B.-R., Stolzmann, P., Delso, G., Wollenweber, S. D., Hüllner, M. W., Hakami, Y. A., Queiroz, M. A., Barbosa, F. D. G., von Schulthess, G. K., Pietsch, C., et al. (2016) · Nuclear Medicine Communications · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000604 · Cited by 58
Impact of acquisition time and penalizing factor in a block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm on a Si-photomultiplier-based PET-CT system for 18F-FDG
Trägårdh, E., Minarik, D., Almquist, H., Bitzén, U., Garpered, S., Hvittfelt, E., Olsson, B., & Oddstig, J. (2019) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-019-0535-4 · Cited by 50
Detection of sub-centimeter lesions using digital TOF-PET/CT system combined with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm
Miwa, K., Wagatsuma, K., Nemoto, R., Masubuchi, M., Kamitaka, Y., Yamao, T., Hiratsuka, S., Yamaguchi, M., Yoshii, T., Kobayashi, R., et al. (2020) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-020-01500-8 · Cited by 57
Phantom, clinical, and texture indices evaluation and optimization of a penalized‐likelihood image reconstruction method (Q.Clear) on a BGO PET/CT scanner
Reynés‐Llompart, G., Gámez‐Cenzano, C., Vercher‐Conejero, J. L., Sabaté‐Llobera, A., Calvo‐Malvar, N., & Martí‐Climent, J. M. (2018) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.12986 · Cited by 55
18F-FDG PET/CT assessment of histopathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer using a penalised likelihood reconstruction
Teoh, E., McGowan, D. R., Bradley, K. M., Belcher, E., Black, E., Moore, A., Sykes, A., & Gleeson, F. V. (2016) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4253-2 · Cited by 55
Self-citation
18F-FDG PET/CT heterogeneity quantification through textural features in the era of harmonisation programs: a focus on lung cancer
Lasnon, C., Majdoub, M., Lavigne, B., Dô, P., Madelaine, J., Visvikis, D., Hatt, M., & Aide, N. (2016) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3441-2 · Cited by 53
Deep learning–based time-of-flight (ToF) image enhancement of non-ToF PET scans
Mehranian, A., Wollenweber, S. D., Walker, M. D., Bradley, K. M., Fielding, P. A., Huellner, M. W., Kotasidis, F. A., Su, K., Johnsen, R., Jansen, F. P., et al. (2022) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-022-05824-7 · Cited by 53
Self-citation
Language Analysis of Speakers with Dementia of the Alzheimer’s Type
Guinn, C. I., & Habash, A. (2012) · National Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 53
Noise reduction using a Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm on a time-of-flight PET-CT scanner
Caribé, P. R. R. V., Koole, M., D’Asseler, Y., Van Den Broeck, B., & Vandenberghe, S. (2019) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0264-9 · Cited by 51
Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation
Rogasch, J. M. M., Hofheinz, F., van Heek, L., Voltin, C.-A., Boellaard, R., & Kobe, C. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12020451 · Cited by 57
PET/MR in Head and Neck Cancer – An Update
Huellner, M. W. (2020) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.07.006 · Cited by 50
[18F]Fluorocholine Uptake of Parathyroid Adenoma Is Correlated with Parathyroid Hormone Level
Alharbi, A. A., Alshehri, F. M., Albatly, A. A., Sah, B.-R., Schmid, C., Huber, G. F., & Huellner, M. W. (2018) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-018-1179-x · Cited by 48
Standard OSEM vs. regularized PET image reconstruction: qualitative and quantitative comparison using phantom data and various clinical radiopharmaceuticals.
Lantos, J., Mittra, E., Levin, C. S., & Iagaru, A. H. (2018) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 48
SPECT at the speed of PET: a feasibility study of CZT-based whole-body SPECT/CT in the post 177Lu-DOTATATE and 177Lu-PSMA617 setting
Hong, S., Ferri, V., Duan, H., Aparici, C. M., Davidzon, G., Franc, B. L., Moradi, F., Nguyen, J., Shah, J. C., & Iagaru, A. H. (2023) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-023-06176-6 · Cited by 52
Quantitative performance and optimal regularization parameter in block sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstructions in clinical 68Ga-PSMA PET/MR
ter Voert, E. E. G. W., Muehlematter, U. J., Delso, G., Pizzuto, D. A., Müller, J., Nagel, H. W., & Burger, I. A. (2018) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-018-0414-4 · Cited by 46
Evaluation of a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for low-count clinical 18F-FDG PET/CT
te Riet, J., Rijnsdorp, S., Roef, M. J., & Arends, A. J. (2019) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0262-y · Cited by 46
Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET/CT systems
Chicheportiche, A., Marciano, R., & Orevi, M. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-0271-x · Cited by 45
Evaluation of lesion detectability in positron emission tomography when using a convergent penalized likelihood image reconstruction method
Wangerin, K. A., Ahn, S., Wollenweber, S. D., Ross, S. G., Kinahan, P. E., & Manjeshwar, R. M. (2016) · Journal of medical imaging · doi:10.1117/1.jmi.4.1.011002 · Cited by 43
Bayesian penalized-likelihood reconstruction algorithm suppresses edge artifacts in PET reconstruction based on point-spread-function
Yamaguchi, S., Wagatsuma, K., Miwa, K., Ishii, K., Inoue, K., & Fukushi, M. (2018) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.02.013 · Cited by 43
Faster PET reconstruction with non-smooth priors by randomization and preconditioning
Ehrhardt, M. J., Markiewicz, P. J., & Schönlieb, C. (2019) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab3d07 · Cited by 43
Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) of 18F-fluciclovine PET for imaging of recurrent prostate cancer: semi-quantitative and clinical evaluation
Teoh, E., McGowan, D. R., Schuster, D. M., Tsakok, M., Gleeson, F. V., & Bradley, K. M. (2018) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20170727 · Cited by 42
Self-citation
Generating harmonized SUV within the EANM EARL accreditation program: software approach versus EARL-compliant reconstruction
Lasnon, C., Salomon, T., Desmonts, C., Dô, P., Oulkhouir, Y., Madelaine, J., & Aide, N. (2016) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-016-1135-2 · Cited by 41
Evaluation of data-driven respiratory gating waveforms for clinical PET imaging
Walker, M. D., Morgan, A. J., Bradley, K. M., & McGowan, D. R. (2019) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-018-0470-9 · Cited by 40
Self-citation
Effect of a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood PET Reconstruction Compared With Ordered Subset Expectation Maximization on Clinical Image Quality Over a Wide Range of Patient Weights
Chilcott, A., Bradley, K. M., & McGowan, D. R. (2017) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.17.18060 · Cited by 40
Self-citation
Impact of [18F]FDG PET/CT Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Decision Making in Lung Cancer: Its Current Role
Safarian, A., Mirshahvalad, S. A., Nasrollahi, H., Jung, T., Pirich, C., Arabi, H., & Beheshti, M. (2025) · Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2025.02.006 · Cited by 40
Performance characteristics of silicon photomultiplier based 15-cm AFOV TOF PET/CT
Vandendriessche, D., Uribe, J., Bertin, H., & Geeter, F. D. (2019) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0244-0 · Cited by 39
Impact of PET reconstruction protocols on quantification of lesions that fulfil the PERCIST lesion inclusion criteria
Devriese, J., Beels, L., Maes, A., de Wiele, C. V., & Pottel, H. (2018) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-018-0235-6 · Cited by 37
Image quality evaluation in a modern PET system: impact of new reconstructions methods and a radiomics approach
Reynés-Llompart, G., Sabaté-Llobera, A., Llinares-Tello, E., Martí-Climent, J. M., & Gámez-Cenzano, C. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-46937-8 · Cited by 35
Evaluation of block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction of 68Ga-DOTATOC, 18F-fluoride, and 11C-acetate whole-body examinations acquired on a digital time-of-flight PET/CT scanner
Lindström, E., Lindsjö, L., Sundin, A., Sørensen, J. C. H., & Lubberink, M. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00310-1 · Cited by 35
Clinical and phantom validation of a deep learning based denoising algorithm for F-18-FDG PET images from lower detection counting in comparison with the standard acquisition
Bonardel, G., Dupont, A., Decazes, P., Queneau, M., Modzelewski, R., Coulot, J., Calvez, N. L., & Hapdey, S. (2022) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-022-00465-z · Cited by 35
Impact of the Q.Clear reconstruction algorithm on the interpretation of PET/CT images in patients with lymphoma
Wyrzykowski, M., Siminiak, N., Kaźmierczak, M., Ruchała, M., & Czepczyński, R. (2020) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-020-00690-6 · Cited by 34
Impact of γ factor in the penalty function of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) to achieve high-resolution PET images
Miwa, K., Yoshii, T., Wagatsuma, K., Nezu, S., Kamitaka, Y., Yamao, T., Kobayashi, R., Fukuda, S., Yakushiji, Y., Miyaji, N., et al. (2023) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-023-00527-w · Cited by 34
Performance Characteristics of a New-Generation Digital Bismuth Germanium Oxide PET/CT System, Omni Legend 32, According to NEMA NU 2-2018 Standards
Yamagishi, S., Miwa, K., Kamitaki, S., Anraku, K., Sato, S., Yamao, T., Kubo, H., Miyaji, N., & Oguchi, K. (2023) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.123.266140 · Cited by 33
Evaluation and Optimization of a New PET Reconstruction Algorithm, Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction, for Lung Cancer Assessment According to Lesion Size
Otani, T., Hosono, M., Kanagaki, M., Onishi, Y., Matsubara, N., Kawabata, K., & Kimura, H. (2019) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.18.20478 · Cited by 33
Optimization of Image Reconstruction for 90Y Selective Internal Radiotherapy on a Lutetium Yttrium Orthosilicate PET/CT System Using a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm
Rowley, L. M., Bradley, K. M., Boardman, P., Hallam, A., & McGowan, D. R. (2016) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.176552 · Cited by 33
Self-citation
Status of cardiovascular PET radiation exposure and strategies for reduction: An Information Statement from the Cardiovascular PET Task Force
Case, J. A., deKemp, R. A., Slomka, P. J., Smith, M. F., Heller, G. V., & Cerqueira, M. D. (2017) · Journal of Nuclear Cardiology · doi:10.1007/s12350-017-0897-9 · Cited by 32
Evaluation of principal component analysis-based data-driven respiratory gating for positron emission tomography
Walker, M. D., Bradley, K. M., & McGowan, D. R. (2018) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20170793 · Cited by 31
Self-citation
Optimization of a Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm (Q.Clear) for 18F-NaF bone PET/CT images acquired over shorter durations using a custom-designed phantom
Yoshii, T., Miwa, K., Yamaguchi, M., Shimada, K., Wagatsuma, K., Yamao, T., Kamitaka, Y., Hiratsuka, S., Kobayashi, R., Ichikawa, H., et al. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00325-8 · Cited by 31
Optimising quantitative 90Y PET imaging: an investigation into the effects of scan length and Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction
Scott, N., & McGowan, D. R. (2019) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-019-0512-y · Cited by 30
Self-citation
The value of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on 18F-FDG PET/CT: comparison with ordered subset expectation maximization reconstruction incorporating time-of-flight model and point spread function correction
Kurita, Y., Ichikawa, Y., Nakanishi, T., Tomita, Y., Hasegawa, D., Murashima, S., Hirano, T., & Sakuma, H. (2020) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-020-01446-x · Cited by 29
Clinical evaluation of reconstruction and acquisition time for pediatric 18F-FDG brain PET using digital PET/CT
Shkumat, N. A., Vali, R., & Shammas, A. (2020) · Pediatric Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00247-020-04640-1 · Cited by 29
Preliminary Results of an Ongoing Prospective Clinical Trial on the Use of 68Ga-PSMA and 68Ga-DOTA-RM2 PET/MRI in Staging of High-Risk Prostate Cancer Patients
Mapelli, P., Ghezzo, S., Gajate, A. M. S., Preza, E., Brembilla, G., Cucchiara, V., Ahmed, N., Bezzi, C., Presotto, L., Bettinardi, V., et al. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics11112068 · Cited by 29
New standards for phantom image quality and SUV harmonization range for multicenter oncology PET studies
Akamatsu, G., Shimada, N., Matsumoto, K., Daisaki, H., Suzuki, K., Watabe, H., Oda, K., Senda, M., Terauchi, T., & Tateishi, U. (2022) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-021-01709-1 · Cited by 27
Optimization of [18F]PSMA-1007 PET-CT using regularized reconstruction in patients with prostate cancer
Trägårdh, E., Minarik, D., Brolin, G., Bitzén, U., Olsson, B., & Oddstig, J. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00298-8 · Cited by 27
Ordered subset expectation maximisation vs Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction algorithm in 18F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT
Witkowska-Patena, E., Budzyńska, A., Giżewska, A., Dziuk, M., & Walęcka-Mazur, A. (2020) · Annals of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12149-019-01433-x · Cited by 27
EORTC PET response criteria are more influenced by reconstruction inconsistencies than PERCIST but both benefit from the EARL harmonization program
Lasnon, C., Quak, E., Roux, P. L., Robin, P., Hofman, M. S., Bourhis, D., Callahan, J., Binns, D., Desmonts, C., Salaün, P., et al. (2017) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-017-0185-4 · Cited by 27
A clinical evaluation of the impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm on PET FDG metrics
Vallot, D., Caselles, O., Chaltiel, L., Fernandez, A., Gabiache, E., Dierickx, L., Zerdoud, S., Bauriaud, M., & Courbon, F. (2017) · Nuclear Medicine Communications · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000729 · Cited by 27
Impact of the Bayesian penalized likelihood algorithm (Q.Clear®) in comparison with the OSEM reconstruction on low contrast PET hypoxic images
Texte, E., Gouel, P., Thureau, S., Lequesne, J., Barres, B., Edet‐Sanson, A., Decazes, P., Véra, P., & Hapdey, S. (2020) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00300-3 · Cited by 27
The Effect of Various β Values on Image Quality and Semiquantitative Measurements in 68Ga-RM2 and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI Images Reconstructed With a Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization Algorithm
Baratto, L., Duan, H., Ferri, V., Khalighi, M. M., & Iagaru, A. H. (2020) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000003075 · Cited by 25
How Do the More Recent Reconstruction Algorithms Affect the Interpretation Criteria of PET/CT Images?
Matti, A., Lima, G. M., Pettinato, C., Pietrobon, F., Martinelli, F., & Fanti, S. (2019) · Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s13139-019-00594-x · Cited by 25
[18F]Fluoromisonidazole PET in rectal cancer
Puri, T., Greenhalgh, T. A., Wilson, J. M., Franklin, J. M., Wang, L. M., Strauss, V. Y., Cunningham, C., Partridge, M., & Maughan, T. (2017) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-017-0324-x · Cited by 24
Performance evaluation of the Q.Clear reconstruction framework versus conventional reconstruction algorithms for quantitative brain PET-MR studies
Ribeiro, D. P., Hallett, W. A., & Tavares, A. (2021) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-021-00386-3 · Cited by 24
Determination of optimal regularization factor in Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction of brain PET images using [18F]FDG and [11C]PiB
Wagatsuma, K., Miwa, K., Kamitaka, Y., Koike, E., Yamao, T., Yoshii, T., Kobayashi, R., Nezu, S., Sugamata, Y., Miyaji, N., et al. (2022) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.15593 · Cited by 24
Can Q.Clear reconstruction be used to improve [68 Ga]Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT image quality in overweight NEN patients?
Zanoni, L., Argalia, G., Fortunati, E., Malizia, C., Allegri, V., Calabrò, D., Civollani, S., Campana, D., Fanti, S., & Ambrosini, V. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05592-w · Cited by 23
Comparison of different automated lesion delineation methods for metabolic tumor volume of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma
Wang, X., Zhao, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Y., Zhu, Z., & Wu, N. (2017) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000009365 · Cited by 23
Impact of total variation regularized expectation maximization reconstruction on the image quality of 68Ga-PSMA PET: a phantom and patient study
Yang, F., Ai, S., Wu, R., Lv, Y., Xie, H.-F., Dong, Y., Meng, Q., & Feng, W. (2021) · British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20201356 · Cited by 20
Impact of the Noise Penalty Factor on Quantification in Bayesian Penalized Likelihood (Q.Clear) Reconstructions of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Scans
Rijnsdorp, S., Roef, M. J., & Arends, A. J. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics11050847 · Cited by 22
Quantitative and Qualitative Improvement of Low-Count [68Ga]Citrate and [90Y]Microspheres PET Image Reconstructions Using Block Sequential Regularized Expectation Maximization Algorithm
Seo, Y., Khalighi, M. M., Wangerin, K. A., Deller, T. W., Wang, Y.-H., Jivan, S., Kohi, M. P., Aggarwal, R. R., Flavell, R. R., Behr, S. C., et al. (2019) · Molecular Imaging and Biology · doi:10.1007/s11307-019-01347-0 · Cited by 21
Fully 3D implementation of the end-to-end deep image prior-based PET image reconstruction using block iterative algorithm
Hashimoto, F., Onishi, Y., Ote, K., Tashima, H., & Yamaya, T. (2023) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ace49c · Cited by 21
BSREM Reconstruction for Improved Detection of In-Transit Metastases With Digital FDG-PET/CT in Patients With Malignant Melanoma
Aljared, A., Alharbi, A. A., & Huellner, M. W. (2018) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000002024 · Cited by 21
Quantitative bone SPECT/CT reconstruction utilizing anatomical information
Kangasmaa, T. S., CONSTABLE, C. J., & Sohlberg, A. O. (2021) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00348-1 · Cited by 21
Impact of penalizing factor in a block-sequential regularized expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for 18F-fluorocholine PET-CT regarding image quality and interpretation
Bjöersdorff, M., Oddstig, J., Karindotter-Borgendahl, N., Almquist, H., Zackrisson, S., Minarik, D., & Trägårdh, E. (2019) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0242-2 · Cited by 20
Phantom and clinical assessment of small pulmonary nodules using Q.Clear reconstruction on a silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system
Wu, Z., Guo, B., Huang, B., Hao, X., Wu, P., Zhao, B., Qin, Z., Xie, J., & Li, S. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-89725-z · Cited by 20
Comparison of conventional and Si-photomultiplier-based PET systems for image quality and diagnostic performance
Oddstig, J., Svegborn, S. L., Almquist, H., Bitzèn, U., Garpered, S., Hedeer, F., Hindorf, C., Jögi, J., Jonsson, L. M., Minarik, D., et al. (2019) · BMC Medical Imaging · doi:10.1186/s12880-019-0377-6 · Cited by 20
68Ga-PSMA-11 dose reduction for dedicated pelvic imaging with simultaneous PET/MR using TOF BSREM reconstructions
Svirydenka, H., Muehlematter, U. J., Nagel, H. W., Delso, G., Ferraro, D. A., Kudura, K., Burger, I. A., & ter Voert, E. E. G. W. (2020) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-020-06667-2 · Cited by 19
Can a penalized-likelihood estimation algorithm be used to reduce the injected dose or the acquisition time in 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT studies?
Chicheportiche, A., Goshen, E., Godefroy, J., Grozinsky‐Glasberg, S., Oleinikov, K., Meirovitz, A., Gross, D. J., & Ben‐Haim, S. (2021) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-021-00359-6 · Cited by 20
Moving the goalposts while scoring―the dilemma posed by new PET technologies
Rogasch, J. M. M., Boellaard, R., Pike, L., Borchmann, P., Johnson, P., Wolf, J., Barrington, S. F., & Kobe, C. (2021) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-021-05403-2 · Cited by 20
Method to determine the statistical technical variability of SUV metrics
Luca, G. D. D., & Habraken, J. (2022) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-022-00470-2 · Cited by 19
Enhancing the spatial resolution of hyperpolarized carbon‐13 MRI of human brain metabolism using structure guidance
Ehrhardt, M. J., Gallagher, F. A., McLean, M. A., & Schönlieb, C. (2021) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.29045 · Cited by 19
Feasibility of diffusion-weighted imaging with DWIBS in staging Hodgkin lymphoma in pediatric patients: comparison with PET/CT
Barańska, D., Matera, K., Podgórski, M. T., Górska-Chrząstek, M., Krajewska, K., Trelińska, J., & Grzelak, P. (2018) · Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10334-018-0726-4 · Cited by 17
Comparison between silicon photomultiplier-based and conventional PET/CT in patients with suspected lung cancer—a pilot study
Lundeberg, J. E., Oddstig, J., Bitzèn, U., & Trägårdh, E. (2019) · EJNMMI Research · doi:10.1186/s13550-019-0504-y · Cited by 17
An Investigation of Stochastic Variance Reduction Algorithms for Relative Difference Penalized 3D PET Image Reconstruction
Twyman, R., Arridge, S., Kereta, Ž., Jin, B., Brusaferri, L., Ahn, S., Stearns, C. W., Hutton, B. F., Burger, I. A., Kotasidis, F. A., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2022.3203237 · Cited by 16
Effect of Bayesian-penalized likelihood reconstruction on [13N]-NH3 rest perfusion quantification
O’Doherty, J., McGowan, D. R., Abreu, C., & Barrington, S. F. (2016) · Journal of Nuclear Cardiology · doi:10.1007/s12350-016-0554-8 · Cited by 16
Self-citation
Discovery Molecular Imaging Digital Ready PET/CT performance evaluation according to the NEMA NU2-2012 standard
Michopoulou, S. K., O’Shaughnessy, E., Thomson, K. E., & Guy, M. (2018) · Nuclear Medicine Communications · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000962 · Cited by 15
Evaluation of Quantitative Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT Repeatability of Recurrent Prostate Cancer Lesions Using Both OSEM and Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithms
Roef, M., Rijnsdorp, S., Brouwer, C., Wyndaele, D., & Arends, A. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics11061100 · Cited by 11
Standardisation of conventional and advanced iterative reconstruction methods for Gallium-68 multi-centre PET-CT trials
Krokos, G., Pike, L. C., Cook, G., & Marsden, P. K. (2021) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-021-00400-8 · Cited by 15
Performance characteristic evaluation of a bismuth germanate-based high-sensitivity 5-ring discovery image quality positron emission tomography/computed tomography system as per National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2012
Jha, A. K., Mithun, S., Puranik, A. D., Purandare, N. C., Shah, S. A., Agrawal, A., & Rangarajan, V. (2019) · World Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.4103/wjnm.wjnm_72_18 · Cited by 14
The Impact of a Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm on the Evaluation of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules by Dual–Time Point 18F-FDG PET/CT
Vieira, T. S., Faria, D. B., Silva, F. D. A., Pimentel, F. L., & de Oliveira, J. P. (2017) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000001713 · Cited by 13
Improved image reconstruction of 89Zr-immunoPET studies using a Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm
Kirchner, J., O’Donoghue, J. A., Becker, A. S., & Ulaner, G. A. (2021) · EJNMMI Physics · doi:10.1186/s40658-021-00352-z · Cited by 13
FDG-PET/CT for pretherapeutic lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: A tailored approach to the ESTS/ESMO guideline workflow
Rogasch, J. M. M., Frost, N., Bluemel, S., Michaels, L., Penzkofer, T., von Laffert, M., Temmesfeld‐Wollbrück, B., Neudecker, J., Rückert, J., Ochsenreither, S., et al. (2021) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.05.003 · Cited by 15

Authors: Teoh, E. J., McGowan, D. R., Macpherson, R. E., Bradley, K. M., & Gleeson, F. V.
Affiliations: Churchill Hospital (GB)
ORCID: Teoh, Eugene J.
McGowan, Daniel R.
Macpherson, Ruth E.
Bradley, Kevin M.
Gleeson, Fergus V.
Venue: Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Publisher: Society of Nuclear Medicine
Published: 2015-07-09
Volume: 56
Issue: 9
Pages: 1447-1452
ISSN: 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
2159-662X
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.159301
PMC: PMC4558942
OpenAlex: W2161249702
Cited by: 265
References: 22
Citations by year: 2026: 14 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2
FWCI: 12.43
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: bronze
doi.org
Locations: Journal of Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
PubMed (publishedVersion)
PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders: Cancer Research UK (16466)
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-HCS-D12-03-13)
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: Q.Clear, Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction, PET image reconstruction, OSEM, point spread function modeling, 18F-FDG PET/CT, image quality, lesion detectability, contrast recovery, background variation, time-of-flight PET, lung cancer, mediastinal lymph nodes, liver metastasis
MeSH terms: Machine Learning, Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Likelihood Functions, Phantoms, Imaging, Positron-Emission Tomography, Multimodal Imaging

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

Phantom and Clinical Evaluation of the Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm Q.Clear on an LYSO PET/CT System

Abstract

Overview

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Claims other papers make about this one

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks