201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18670852)
61. Influence of PET reconstruction parameters on the TrueX algorithm. A combined phantom and patient study.
Knäusl B; Rausch IF; Bergmann H; Dudczak R; Hirtl A; Georg D
Nuklearmedizin; 2013; 52(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 23348719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. Dual-modality brain PET-CT image segmentation based on adaptive use of functional and anatomical information.
Xia Y; Eberl S; Wen L; Fulham M; Feng DD
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2012 Jan; 36(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 21719257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. PET/CT image registration: preliminary tests for its application to clinical dosimetry in radiotherapy.
Baños-Capilla MC; García MA; Bea J; Pla C; Larrea L; López E
Med Phys; 2007 Jun; 34(6):1911-7. PubMed ID: 17654893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Parametric imaging: a promising approach for the evaluation of dynamic PET-18F-FDG studies - the DKFZ experience.
Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A; Pan L; Strauss LG
Hell J Nucl Med; 2010; 13(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 20411165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Semiautomatic algorithm for lymph node analysis corrected for partial volume effects in combined positron emission tomography-computed tomography.
Bundschuh RA; Essler M; Dinges J; Berchtenbreiter C; Mariss J; Martínez-Möller A; Delso G; Hohberg M; Nekolla SG; Schulz D; Ziegler SI; Schwaiger M
Mol Imaging; 2010 Dec; 9(6):319-28. PubMed ID: 21087577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Lymph node imaging: basic principles.
Luciani A; Itti E; Rahmouni A; Meignan M; Clement O
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):338-44. PubMed ID: 16473489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Optimal diagnostic method using multidetector-row computed tomography for predicting lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer.
Kumamoto T; Shindoh J; Mita H; Fujii Y; Mihara Y; Takahashi M; Takemura N; Shirakawa T; Shinohara H; Kuroyanagi H
World J Surg Oncol; 2019 Feb; 17(1):39. PubMed ID: 30795767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Assessment of tumour response with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography using three-dimensional measures compared to SUVmax--a phantom study.
Boucek JA; Francis RJ; Jones CG; Khan N; Turlach BA; Green AJ
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Aug; 53(16):4213-30. PubMed ID: 18653927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Clinical validation of fully 3-D versus 2.5-D RAMLA reconstruction on the Philips-ADAC CPET PET scanner.
Chiang S; Cardi C; Matej S; Zhuang H; Newberg A; Alavi A; Karp JS
Nucl Med Commun; 2004 Nov; 25(11):1103-7. PubMed ID: 15577588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Segmentation of heterogeneous or small FDG PET positive tissue based on a 3D-locally adaptive random walk algorithm.
Onoma DP; Ruan S; Thureau S; Nkhali L; Modzelewski R; Monnehan GA; Vera P; Gardin I
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2014 Dec; 38(8):753-63. PubMed ID: 25450759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Cerebral arterial inflow assessment with 18F-FDG PET: methodology and feasibility.
Benathan-Tordjmann J; Bailly P; Meyer ME; Daouk J
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2014 Oct; 116(3):177-83. PubMed ID: 25015567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Validation of quantitative accuracy of the post-injection transmission-based and transmissionless attenuation correction techniques in neurological FDG-PET.
Kaneko K; Kuwabara Y; Sasaki M; Koga H; Abe K; Baba S; Hayashi K; Honda H
Nucl Med Commun; 2004 Nov; 25(11):1095-102. PubMed ID: 15577587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Diagnosis of regional node metastases in lung cancer with computer-aided 3D measurement of the volume and CT-attenuation values of lymph nodes.
Takahashi Y; Takashima S; Hakucho T; Miyake C; Morimoto D; Jiang BH; Numasaki H; Tomita Y; Nakanishi K; Higashiyama M
Acad Radiol; 2013 Jun; 20(6):740-5. PubMed ID: 23473720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. FDG-PET parametric imaging by total variation minimization.
Guo H; Renaut RA; Chen K; Reiman E
Comput Med Imaging Graph; 2009 Jun; 33(4):295-303. PubMed ID: 19261438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Combining multiple FDG-PET radiotherapy target segmentation methods to reduce the effect of variable performance of individual segmentation methods.
McGurk RJ; Bowsher J; Lee JA; Das SK
Med Phys; 2013 Apr; 40(4):042501. PubMed ID: 23556917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. PET/CT artifacts.
Blodgett TM; Mehta AS; Mehta AS; Laymon CM; Carney J; Townsend DW
Clin Imaging; 2011; 35(1):49-63. PubMed ID: 21237418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Variability of lesion detectability and standardized uptake value according to the acquisition procedure and reconstruction among five PET scanners.
Takahashi Y; Oriuchi N; Otake H; Endo K; Murase K
Ann Nucl Med; 2008 Jul; 22(6):543-8. PubMed ID: 18670864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Subcutaneous metastases of colorectal cancer detected with PET/CT.
Karyagar S; Karyagar SS; Kece C; Ozdil B
Clin Nucl Med; 2010 Apr; 35(4):267-8. PubMed ID: 20305419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Quantification method in [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose brain positron emission tomography using independent component analysis.
Su KH; Wu LC; Liu RS; Wang SJ; Chen JC
Nucl Med Commun; 2005 Nov; 26(11):995-1004. PubMed ID: 16208178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Towards intra-operative PET for head and neck cancer: lymph node localization using high-energy probes.
Shakir DI; Okur A; Hart A; Matthies P; Ziegler SI; Essler M; Lasser T; Navab N
Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv; 2012; 15(Pt 1):430-7. PubMed ID: 23285580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
