No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Resolution modeling enhances PET imaging
1. J. R. Swedlow
, J. W. Sedat
, and D. A. Agard
, “Deconvolution in optical microscopy
,” in Deconvolution of Images and Spectra
, 2nd ed.
, edited by P. Jansson
, San Diego, CA
), pp. 284
2. J. L. Starck, E. Pantin, and F. Murtagh, “Deconvolution in astronomy: A review,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 114, 1051–1069 (2002).
3. A. Rahmim, J. Qi, and V. Sossi, “Resolution modeling in PET imaging: Theory, practice, benefits, and pitfalls,” Med. Phys. 40, 064301 (15pp.) (2013).
4. D. J. Kadrmas, M. E. Casey, N. F. Black, J. J. Hamill, V. Y. Panin, and M. Conti, “Experimental comparison of lesion detectability for four fully-3D PET reconstruction schemes,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 28, 523–534 (2009).
5. V. Y. Panin, F. Kehren, C. Michel, and M. Casey, “Fully 3-D PET reconstruction with system matrix derived from point source measurements,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 25, 907–921 (2006).
6. S. Tong, A. M. Alessio, and P. E. Kinahan, “Noise and signal properties in PSF-based fully 3D PET image reconstruction: An experimental evaluation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 1453–1473 (2010).
7. C. C. Watson, “Estimating effective model kernel widths for PSF reconstruction in PET,” IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Valencia (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2011), pp. 2368–2374.
8. S. Tong, A. M. Alessio, K. Thielemans, C. Stearns, S. Ross, and P. E. Kinahan, “Properties and mitigation of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 58, 2264–2275 (2011).
10. S. A. Blinder, K. Dinelle, and V. Sossi, “Scanning rats on the high resolution research tomograph (HRRT): A comparison study with a dedicated micro-PET,” Med. Phys. 39, 5073–5083 (2012).
11. I. S. Armstrong, H. A. Williams, and J. C. Matthews, “Accuracy and variability of quantitative measurements using PET with time-of-flight information and resolution modelling,” 2011 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), Valencia (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2011), pp. 4167–4170.
12. N. J. Hoetjes, F. H. P. van Velden, O. S. Hoekstra, C. J. Hoekstra, N. C. Krak, A. A. Lammertsma, and R. Boellaard, “Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 37(9), 1679–1687 (2010).
13. D. J. Kadrmas, M. E. Casey, M. Conti, B. W. Jakoby, C. Lois, and D. W. Townsend, “Impact of time-of-flight on PET tumor detection,” J. Nucl. Med. 50, 1315–1323 (2009).
14. J. Schaefferkoetter, M. Casey, D. Townsend, and G. El Fakhri, “Clinical impact of time-of-flight and point response modeling in PET reconstructions: A lesion detection study,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 1465–1478 (2013).
16. M. van Heijl, J. M. Omloo, M. I. V. Henegouwen, J. J. van Lanschot, G. W. Sloof, and R. Boellaard, “Influence of ROI definition, partial volume correction and SUV normalization on SUV-survival correlation in oesophageal cancer,” Nucl. Med. Commun. 31(7), 652–658 (2010).
17. M. Hatt, A. Le Pogam, D. Visvikis, O. Pradier, and C. C. Le Rest, “Impact of partial-volume effect correction on the predictive and prognostic value of baseline F-18-FDG PET images in esophageal cancer,” J. Nucl. Med. 53(1), 12–20 (2012).
18. J. A. Maisonobe, C. A. Garcia, H. Necib, B. Vanderlinden, A. Hendlisz, P. Flamen, and I. Buvat, “Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40(2), 166–174 (2013).
Article metrics loading...
There is no abstract available for this article.
Full text loading...
Most read this month