ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025
Image reconstruction and analysis of atherosclerosis imaging by [
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDigital PETCT scanners have improved spatial resolution and sensitivity. This may have implications for reconstruction parameters and atherosclerosis assessment using [
methodsUsing clinical PETCT and phantom analysis, we quantitatively assessed two reconstructions ('EANM' and 'local') for atherosclerotic assessment using mean contrast recovery (MCR), absolute error and coefficient of variation (CoV). We assessed the impact of each reconstruction on tissue-to-background ratio (TBR). We also assessed the differences within four blood pool regions on repeated imaging over 24-weeks.
resultsEANM reconstruction yielded higher TBRmax, 4.28 ± 0.65 vs 1.81 ± 0.24 p < 0.0001, than local reconstruction. Phantom data demonstrated a higher RCmax curve with EANM vs local reconstruction. EANM MCR was 1.87 vs 1.23 with local reconstruction, with higher absolute error (2.23 vs 0.61) and variation (7.63% vs 4.14%), vs local reconstruction. Superior vena cava (SVC) offered the most reproducible and reliable blood pool data. Internal jugular vein had lower FDG-uptake compared to other regions, resulting in higher TBRmax, but was less reproducible between scans over 24 weeks.
conclusionLocal reconstruction, with fewer iterations and subsets compared to EANM recommendations, resulted in more accurate atherosclerotic assessment on a contemporary digital scanner. Metrics for assessing reconstructions, such as absolute error and CoV, provided valuable information. The blood pool region used affects TBR. SVC appears to provide the most reliable blood pool region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40514458What 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.