ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Whole-body PET image denoising for reduced acquisition time.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An AI-Based Solution for Denoising Fast-Acquisition [Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Reducing acquisition time in O-(2-Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Single-scan adaptive graph filtering for dynamic PET denoising by exploring intrinsic spatio-temporal structure.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based PET image denoising and reconstruction: a review.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: A reduced acquisition time positively impacts the patient's comfort and the PET scanner's throughput. AI methods may allow for reducing PET acquisition time without sacrificing image quality. The study aims to compare various neural networks to find the best models for PET denoising. Methods: Our experiments consider 212 studies (56,908 images) for 7MBq/kg injected activity and evaluate the models using 2D (RMSE, SSIM) and 3D (SUVpeak and SUVmax error for the regions of interest) metrics. We tested 2D and 2.5D ResNet, Unet, SwinIR, 3D MedNeXt, and 3D UX-Net. We have also compared supervised methods with the unsupervised CycleGAN approach. Results and conclusion: The best model for PET denoising is 3D MedNeXt. It improved SSIM on 38.2% and RMSE on 28.1% in 30-s PET denoising and on 16.9% and 11.4% in 60-s PET denoising when compared to the original 90-s PET reducing at the same time SUVmax discrepancy dispersion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.