ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Technical Optimization Strategies for Amyloid PET Under Challenging Acquisition Conditions: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amyloid PET is increasingly used to confirm cerebral amyloid burden, but standard acquisition may be compromised by head motion, limited patient cooperation, reduced effective counts, premature scan termination, or non-repeatable imaging conditions. This comprehensive narrative review used a structured evidence-mapping approach in accordance with SANRA quality criteria. A structured literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 15 March 2026. Eligible studies included clinical, phantom, or hybrid studies addressing acquisition-time reduction, injected-activity reduction or low-count imaging, motion correction, or artificial intelligence-based image enhancement. Findings were synthesized narratively because of substantial heterogeneity in tracers, scanners, protocols, reconstruction methods, populations, comparators, and endpoints. Sixteen studies were included. Moderate reductions in acquisition time or effective counts generally preserved semiquantitative performance, whereas visual interpretation became more vulnerable under more aggressive reductions, borderline amyloid status, or reduced image quality. Artificial intelligence-based restoration improved image-quality metrics and supported interpretation of short- or low-count acquisitions, but evidence remained model-specific. Motion correction was supported by one amyloid-specific [
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.