Investigation of 18F-FDG 3D mode PET image quality versus acquisition time
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] M. Lodge,et al. Comparison of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional acquisition for 18F-FDG PET oncology studies performed on an LSO-based scanner. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[2] A E Burgess,et al. The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.
[3] A. Viera,et al. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. , 2005, Family medicine.
[4] Osman Ratib,et al. Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[5] Val J Lowe,et al. NEMA NU 2-2001 performance measurements of an LYSO-based PET/CT system in 2D and 3D acquisition modes. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.
[6] Georges El Fakhri,et al. Impact of Acquisition Geometry, Image Processing, and Patient Size on Lesion Detection in Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
[7] M C Gilardi,et al. Two-dimensional vs three-dimensional imaging in whole body oncologic PET/CT: a Discovery-STE phantom and patient study. , 2007, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of....
[8] R. Wahl,et al. Impact of body habitus on quantitative and qualitative image quality in whole-body FDG-PET , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
[9] D. Visvikis,et al. Clinical evaluation of 2D versus 3D whole-body PET image quality using a dedicated BGO PET scanner , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.