| Title |
Evaluation of strategies towards harmonization of FDG PET/CT studies in multicentre trials: comparison of scanner validation phantoms and data analysis procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00259-013-2465-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nikolaos E. Makris, Marc C. Huisman, Paul E. Kinahan, Adriaan A. Lammertsma, Ronald Boellaard |
| Abstract |
PET quantification based on standardized uptake values (SUV) is hampered by several factors, in particular by variability in PET acquisition settings and data analysis methods. Quantitative PET/CT studies acquired during a multicentre trial require harmonization of imaging procedures to maximize study power. The aims of this study were to determine which phantoms are most suitable for detecting differences in image quality and quantification, and which methods for defining volumes of interest (VOI) are least sensitive to these differences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 25 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 39% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 26 | 23% |
| Engineering | 10 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2013.
All research outputs
#21,153,429
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#2,610
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,777
of 199,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#23
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.