117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33625180)
41. 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]
42. Compartment modeling of dynamic brain PET--the impact of scatter corrections on parameter errors.
Häggström I; Schmidtlein CR; Karlsson M; Larsson A
Med Phys; 2014 Nov; 41(11):111907. PubMed ID: 25370640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Visualization of small brain nuclei with a high-spatial resolution, clinically available whole-body PET scanner.
Shinohara Y; Ibaraki M; Matsubara K; Sato K; Yamamoto H; Kinoshita T
Ann Nucl Med; 2024 Feb; 38(2):154-161. PubMed ID: 37989801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. The value of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction for improving lesion conspicuity of malignant lung tumors on
Kurita Y; Ichikawa Y; Nakanishi T; Tomita Y; Hasegawa D; Murashima S; Hirano T; Sakuma H
Ann Nucl Med; 2020 Apr; 34(4):272-279. PubMed ID: 32060780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. Maximum-likelihood reconstruction with ordered subsets in bone SPECT.
Blocklet D; Seret A; Popa N; Schoutens A
J Nucl Med; 1999 Dec; 40(12):1978-84. PubMed ID: 10616874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Towards guidelines to harmonize textural features in PET: Haralick textural features vary with image noise, but exposure-invariant domains enable comparable PET radiomics.
Prenosil GA; Weitzel T; Fürstner M; Hentschel M; Krause T; Cumming P; Rominger A; Klaeser B
PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0229560. PubMed ID: 32176698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. DeepPET: A deep encoder-decoder network for directly solving the PET image reconstruction inverse problem.
Häggström I; Schmidtlein CR; Campanella G; Fuchs TJ
Med Image Anal; 2019 May; 54():253-262. PubMed ID: 30954852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Quantitative CBF measurement using an integrated SPECT/CT system: validation of three-dimensional ordered-subset expectation maximization and CT-based attenuation correction by comparing with O-15 water PET.
Shimosegawa E; Fujino K; Kato H; Hatazawa J
Ann Nucl Med; 2013 Nov; 27(9):822-33. PubMed ID: 23824783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET.
Ahn S; Ross SG; Asma E; Miao J; Jin X; Cheng L; Wollenweber SD; Manjeshwar RM
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Aug; 60(15):5733-51. PubMed ID: 26158503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Performance evaluation of the Q.Clear reconstruction framework versus conventional reconstruction algorithms for quantitative brain PET-MR studies.
Ribeiro D; Hallett W; Tavares AAS
EJNMMI Phys; 2021 May; 8(1):41. PubMed ID: 33961164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Is iterative reconstruction an alternative to filtered backprojection in routine processing of dopamine transporter SPECT studies?
Koch W; Hamann C; Welsch J; Pöpperl G; Radau PE; Tatsch K
J Nucl Med; 2005 Nov; 46(11):1804-11. PubMed ID: 16269593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Comparison of Alzheimer's disease patients and healthy controls in the easy Z-score imaging system with differential image reconstruction methods using SPECT/CT: verification using normal database of our institution.
Ohba M; Kobayashi R; Kirii K; Fujita K; Kanezawa C; Hayashi H; Kawakatsu S; Otani K; Kanoto M; Suzuki K
Ann Nucl Med; 2021 Mar; 35(3):307-313. PubMed ID: 33394329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. 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]
56. Effects of acquisition time and reconstruction algorithm on image quality, quantitative parameters, and clinical interpretation of myocardial perfusion imaging.
Enevoldsen LH; Menashi CA; Andersen UB; Jensen LT; Henriksen OM
J Nucl Cardiol; 2013 Dec; 20(6):1086-92. PubMed ID: 23963600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Incorporating HYPR de-noising within iterative PET reconstruction (HYPR-OSEM).
Cheng JK; Matthews J; Sossi V; Anton-Rodriguez J; Salomon A; Boellaard R
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Aug; 62(16):6666-6687. PubMed ID: 28644152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Influence of the partial volume correction method on (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose brain kinetic modelling from dynamic PET images reconstructed with resolution model based OSEM.
Bowen SL; Byars LG; Michel CJ; Chonde DB; Catana C
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Oct; 58(20):7081-106. PubMed ID: 24052021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Compressed sensing for reduction of noise and artefacts in direct PET image reconstruction.
Richter D; Basse-Lüsebrink TC; Kampf T; Fischer A; Israel I; Schneider M; Jakob PM; Samnick S
Z Med Phys; 2014 Mar; 24(1):16-26. PubMed ID: 23756331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Impact of Resolution Recovery in Quantitative
Ismail FS; Mansor S
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Sep; 50(3):449-453. PubMed ID: 31320272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
