232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18006613)
1. Impact of acquisition geometry, image processing, and patient size on lesion detection in whole-body 18F-FDG PET.
El Fakhri G; Santos PA; Badawi RD; Holdsworth CH; Van Den Abbeele AD; Kijewski MF
J Nucl Med; 2007 Dec; 48(12):1951-60. PubMed ID: 18006613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A lesion detection observer study comparing 2-dimensional versus fully 3-dimensional whole-body PET imaging protocols.
Lartizien C; Kinahan PE; Comtat C
J Nucl Med; 2004 Apr; 45(4):714-23. PubMed ID: 15073270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluating image reconstruction methods for tumor detection in 3-dimensional whole-body PET oncology imaging.
Lartizien C; Kinahan PE; Swensson R; Comtat C; Lin M; Villemagne V; Trébossen R
J Nucl Med; 2003 Feb; 44(2):276-90. PubMed ID: 12571221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 4D numerical observer for lesion detection in respiratory-gated PET.
Lorsakul A; Li Q; Trott CM; Hoog C; Petibon Y; Ouyang J; Laine AF; El Fakhri G
Med Phys; 2014 Oct; 41(10):102504. PubMed ID: 25281979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of iterative reconstruction on image contrast and lesion detection in gamma camera coincidence imaging in lung and breast cancers.
Paul AK; Tatsumi M; Yutani K; Fujino K; Hashikawa K; Nishimura T
Nucl Med Commun; 2002 Jan; 23(1):103-10. PubMed ID: 11748445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional acquisition for 18F-FDG PET oncology studies performed on an LSO-based scanner.
Lodge MA; Badawi RD; Gilbert R; Dibos PE; Line BR
J Nucl Med; 2006 Jan; 47(1):23-31. PubMed ID: 16391183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET.
El Fakhri G; Surti S; Trott CM; Scheuermann J; Karp JS
J Nucl Med; 2011 Mar; 52(3):347-53. PubMed ID: 21321265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantitative comparison of analytic and iterative reconstruction methods in 2- and 3-dimensional dynamic cardiac 18F-FDG PET.
Lubberink M; Boellaard R; van der Weerdt AP; Visser FC; Lammertsma AA
J Nucl Med; 2004 Dec; 45(12):2008-15. PubMed ID: 15585474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Attenuation correction in whole-body FDG oncological studies: the role of statistical reconstruction.
Lonneux M; Borbath I; Bol A; Coppens A; Sibomana M; Bausart R; Defrise M; Pauwels S; Michel C
Eur J Nucl Med; 1999 Jun; 26(6):591-8. PubMed ID: 10369944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Reliability of predicting image signal-to-noise ratio using noise equivalent count rate in PET imaging.
Chang T; Chang G; Clark JW; Diab RH; Rohren E; Mawlawi OR
Med Phys; 2012 Oct; 39(10):5891-900. PubMed ID: 23039628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Experimental comparison of lesion detectability for four fully-3D PET reconstruction schemes.
Kadrmas DJ; Casey ME; Black NF; Hamill JJ; Panin VY; Conti M
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2009 Apr; 28(4):523-34. PubMed ID: 19272998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling.
Boellaard R; van Lingen A; Lammertsma AA
J Nucl Med; 2001 May; 42(5):808-17. PubMed ID: 11337581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Using an external gating signal to estimate noise in PET with an emphasis on tracer avid tumors.
Schmidtlein CR; Beattie BJ; Bailey DL; Akhurst TJ; Wang W; Gönen M; Kirov AS; Humm JL
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Oct; 55(20):6299-326. PubMed ID: 20924132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of Penalized-Likelihood Estimation Reconstruction on a Digital Time-of-Flight PET/CT Scanner for
Lindström E; Sundin A; Trampal C; Lindsjö L; Ilan E; Danfors T; Antoni G; Sörensen J; Lubberink M
J Nucl Med; 2018 Jul; 59(7):1152-1158. PubMed ID: 29449445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner.
Visvikis D; Griffiths D; Costa DC; Bomanji J; Ell PJ
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2005 Sep; 32(9):1050-6. PubMed ID: 15846487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Noise reduction in oncology FDG PET images by iterative reconstruction: a quantitative assessment.
Riddell C; Carson RE; Carrasquillo JA; Libutti SK; Danforth DN; Whatley M; Bacharach SL
J Nucl Med; 2001 Sep; 42(9):1316-23. PubMed ID: 11535719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of varying number of OSEM subsets on PET lesion detectability.
Morey AM; Kadrmas DJ
J Nucl Med Technol; 2013 Dec; 41(4):268-73. PubMed ID: 24221921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. NEMA NU4-2008 image quality performance report for the microPET focus 120 and for various transmission and reconstruction methods.
Bahri MA; Plenevaux A; Warnock G; Luxen A; Seret A
J Nucl Med; 2009 Oct; 50(10):1730-8. PubMed ID: 19759103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of image quality with 62Cu and 64Cu-labeled radiotracers in positron emission tomography whole-body phantom imaging.
Kobayashi M; Mori T; Tsujikawa T; Ogai K; Sugama J; Kiyono Y; Kawai K; Okazawa H
Hell J Nucl Med; 2015; 18(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 26187208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of time-of-flight PET on whole-body oncologic studies: a human observer lesion detection and localization study.
Surti S; Scheuermann J; El Fakhri G; Daube-Witherspoon ME; Lim R; Abi-Hatem N; Moussallem E; Benard F; Mankoff D; Karp JS
J Nucl Med; 2011 May; 52(5):712-9. PubMed ID: 21498523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
