Why is the resolution of the discovery PET/CT camera so poor? [1]

Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 898-

  Mullani, Nizar A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAMERA; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CRYSTAL; LETTER; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE SUBTRACTION; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOTE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 20644431605     PISSN: 01615505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Letter

References (2)

1. Mawlawi O, Podoloff DA, Kohlmyer S, et al. Performance characteristics of a newly developed PET/CT scanner using NEMA standards in 2D and 3D modes. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:1734-1742.
2. Mullani NA, Gould KL, Hartz RK, et al. Design and performance of POSICAM 6.5 BGO positron camera. J Nucl Med. 1990;31:610-616.