133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33880686)
21. Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients.
Lasnon C; Desmonts C; Quak E; Gervais R; Do P; Dubos-Arvis C; Aide N
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2013 Jul; 40(7):985-96. PubMed ID: 23564036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Impact of point spread function reconstruction on quantitative 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging parameters and inter-reader reproducibility in solid tumors.
Sheikhbahaei S; Marcus C; Wray R; Rahmim A; Lodge MA; Subramaniam RM
Nucl Med Commun; 2016 Mar; 37(3):288-96. PubMed ID: 26650959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Treatment response assessment in [
Dolci C; Spadavecchia C; Crivellaro C; De Ponti E; Todde S; Morzenti S; Turolla EA; Crespi A; Guerra L; Landoni C
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():177-182. PubMed ID: 30738523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Performance of a deep learning enhancement method applied to PET images acquired with a reduced acquisition time.
Ciborowski K; Gramek-Jedwabna A; Gołąb M; Miechowicz I; Szczurek J; Ruchała M; Czepczyński R
Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur; 2023; 26(0):116-122. PubMed ID: 37786943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Influences of point-spread function and time-of-flight reconstructions on standardized uptake value of lymph node metastases in FDG-PET.
Akamatsu G; Mitsumoto K; Taniguchi T; Tsutsui Y; Baba S; Sasaki M
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Jan; 83(1):226-30. PubMed ID: 24144448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Impact of Point-Spread Function Modeling on PET Image Quality in Integrated PET/MR Hybrid Imaging.
Aklan B; Oehmigen M; Beiderwellen K; Ruhlmann M; Paulus DH; Jakoby BW; Ritt P; Quick HH
J Nucl Med; 2016 Jan; 57(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 26471697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Influence of Reconstruction FOV and Matrix Size on the Quantitative Accuracy of FDG-PET: Comparison between OSEM and Bayesian Penalized Likelihood].
Mikami S; Nakamura F; Nakamura A; Torizuka T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2021; 77(5):454-462. PubMed ID: 34011788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Does the beta regularization parameter of bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction always affect the quantification accuracy and image quality of positron emission tomography computed tomography?
Wu Z; Guo B; Huang B; Zhao B; Qin Z; Hao X; Liang M; Xie J; Li S
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2021 Mar; 22(3):224-233. PubMed ID: 33683004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Effects of New Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction Algorithm on Visualization and Quantification of Upper Abdominal Malignant Tumors in Clinical FDG PET/CT Examinations.
Tatsumi M; Soeda F; Kamiya T; Ueda J; Katayama D; Matsunaga K; Watabe T; Kato H; Tomiyama N
Front Oncol; 2021; 11():707023. PubMed ID: 34485143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Clinical evaluation of PET image reconstruction using a spatial resolution model.
Andersen FL; Klausen TL; Loft A; Beyer T; Holm S
Eur J Radiol; 2013 May; 82(5):862-9. PubMed ID: 23254158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Phantom-based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system.
Fragoso Costa P; Jentzen W; Brahmer A; Mavroeidi IA; Zarrad F; Umutlu L; Fendler WP; Rischpler C; Herrmann K; Conti M; Seifert R; Sraieb M; Weber M; Kersting D
BMC Cancer; 2022 Aug; 22(1):899. PubMed ID: 35978274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Impact of image reconstruction methods on quantitative accuracy and variability of FDG-PET volumetric and textural measures in solid tumors.
Ketabi A; Ghafarian P; Mosleh-Shirazi MA; Mahdavi SR; Rahmim A; Ay MR
Eur Radiol; 2019 Apr; 29(4):2146-2156. PubMed ID: 30280249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Phantom and clinical assessment of small pulmonary nodules using Q.Clear reconstruction on a silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET/CT system.
Wu Z; Guo B; Huang B; Hao X; Wu P; Zhao B; Qin Z; Xie J; Li S
Sci Rep; 2021 May; 11(1):10328. PubMed ID: 33990659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Quantitative comparison between regularized time-of-flight and OSEM PET reconstructions for small 18F-FDG-avid lesions.
Chism CB; Ravizzini GC; Macapinlac HA; Pan T
Nucl Med Commun; 2017 Jun; 38(6):529-536. PubMed ID: 28383318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Evaluation and Optimization of a New PET Reconstruction Algorithm, Bayesian Penalized Likelihood Reconstruction, for Lung Cancer Assessment According to Lesion Size.
Otani T; Hosono M; Kanagaki M; Onishi Y; Matsubara N; Kawabata K; Kimura H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Aug; 213(2):W50-W56. PubMed ID: 30995096
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Validation of the physiological background correction method for the suppression of the spill-in effect near highly radioactive regions in positron emission tomography.
Akerele MI; Wadhwa P; Silva-Rodriguez J; Hallett W; Tsoumpas C
EJNMMI Phys; 2018 Dec; 5(1):34. PubMed ID: 30519974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. SUV Harmonization Between Different Hybrid PET/CT Systems.
Rubello D; Colletti PM
Clin Nucl Med; 2018 Nov; 43(11):811-814. PubMed ID: 30199381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
