Skip to main content

Table 9 Comparison of image quality parameters[3, 18,19,20,21,22]

From: SAFIR-I: first NEMA NU 4-2008-based performance characterization

   

RC

SOR [\(\%\)]

System

RM

%STD\(_{\text {uniform}}\)

\(1\,\hbox {mm}\)

\(2\,\hbox {mm}\)

\(3\,\hbox {mm}\)

\(4\,\hbox {mm}\)

\(5\,\hbox {mm}\)

Water-filled cyl.

Air-filled cyl.

SAFIR-I

3D MLEM

4.8

0.04

0.28

0.54

0.84

1.08

22.0

21.8

SAFIR p.s.

3D MLEM

3.0

0.13\(^d\)

0.29

0.49

0.65

0.88

17.3

18.5

Mosaic

3D RAMLA\(^a\)

5.1

0.22

0.55

0.74

0.87

0.98

6.3

2.7

MuPET

FBP3DRP\(^b\)

6.5

0.19

0.58\(^e\)

0.78\(^e\)

0.89\(^e\)

0.95

9.0

5.0

Inveon

FORE\(^c\) + 2DFBP

5.3

0.17

0.48

0.72

0.84

0.93

1.7

-0.6

Bruker

3D MLEM\(^b\)

4.5

0.14

0.64

0.91

0.95

0.94

6.2

4.6

  1. \(^a\) Row-Action Maximum-Likelihood Algorithm
  2. \(^b\) No scatter correction applied
  3. \(^c\) Fourier Rebinning
  4. \(^d\) The smallest rod was not visible in the reconstructed image
  5. \(^e\) Estimated from plot