Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37695384›Full record

ReviewEJNMMI physics2023

A review of PET attenuation correction methods for PET-MR.

Georgios Krokos, Jane MacKewn, Joel Dunn, Paul Marsden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EJNMMI physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Beyond CT: Attenuation correction for stand-alone brain PET.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Mapping the knowledge landscape of the PET/MR domain: a multidimensional bibliometric analysis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Reduction of [EJNMMI physics · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Georgios KrokosSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. georgios.krokos@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9776-4714
Jane MacKewnSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Joel DunnSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0936-9993
Paul MarsdenSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, The PET Centre at St Thomas' Hospital London, King's College London, 1st Floor Lambeth Wing, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9892-9640

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT 203148/A/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite being thirteen years since the installation of the first PET-MR system, the scanners constitute a very small proportion of the total hybrid PET systems installed. This is in stark contrast to the rapid expansion of the PET-CT scanner, which quickly established its importance in patient diagnosis within a similar timeframe. One of the main hurdles is the development of an accurate, reproducible and easy-to-use method for attenuation correction. Quantitative discrepancies in PET images between the manufacturer-provided MR methods and the more established CT- or transmission-based attenuation correction methods have led the scientific community in a continuous effort to develop a robust and accurate alternative. These can be divided into four broad categories: (i) MR-based, (ii) emission-based, (iii) atlas-based and the (iv) machine learning-based attenuation correction, which is rapidly gaining momentum. The first is based on segmenting the MR images in various tissues and allocating a predefined attenuation coefficient for each tissue. Emission-based attenuation correction methods aim in utilising the PET emission data by simultaneously reconstructing the radioactivity distribution and the attenuation image. Atlas-based attenuation correction methods aim to predict a CT or transmission image given an MR image of a new patient, by using databases containing CT or transmission images from the general population. Finally, in machine learning methods, a model that could predict the required image given the acquired MR or non-attenuation-corrected PET image is developed by exploiting the underlying features of the images. Deep learning methods are the dominant approach in this category. Compared to the more traditional machine learning, which uses structured data for building a model, deep learning makes direct use of the acquired images to identify underlying features. This up-to-date review goes through the literature of attenuation correction approaches in PET-MR after categorising them. The various approaches in each category are described and discussed. After exploring each category separately, a general overview is given of the current status and potential future approaches along with a comparison of the four outlined categories.

Indexed as

Atlas-based attenuation correctionAttenuation correctionDeep-learning-based attenuation correctionDixonMLAAPET-MRPseudo-CTUTE

Identifiers

PMID37695384
PMCPMC10495310

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.