1428:
liver, for example, use huge amounts of glucose all the time, consequently, both show up as positive on a PET scan. Unfortunately, when a part of the body has an active infection, the area becomes flooded with 'macrophage' cells normally - these are fighting the infection, and perfectly healthy, but will show up as PET positive. The theory goes that 'cancer' cells grow more rapidly than 'normal' cells, so take up more glucose than those surrounding them. In theory, therefore, if you have a CT scan of (say) the lung, and there is an abnormal lump in it, you cannot say whether it is a benign harmless lump or a cancer (unless you are treated on the NHS in the UK, and the MD you see chooses to save money and just guess). You need to actually grab a piece of the 'lump' and examine it under a microscope (ie have a biopsy and tissue diagnosis performed). If you have a CT scan with a lump in it, and then perform a PET scan, you end up with two superimposeable images: if the lump corresponds in space to an area on the PET scan that appears to be PET positive, you have an indication that the lump is undergoing rapid cell division (ie is cancerous) OR that the body has swamped the area with macrophage cells to fight a localised infection: so all in all, PET scans are not 100% diagnostic of cancer - you still need a biopsy. All in all, as they are currently used by HHS practitioners in the UK, PET scans are almost worthless, and tend to be used as an alternative to what NICE and SIGN guidelines describe as the 'gold standards' for diagnosis (ie physical biopsy and immunohistochemical laboratory work), in order to hide a) the general shortage of surgeons to perform biopsies because their waiting lists are too long, and b) the appallingly low standards of NHS Pathology laboratories, many of which lack full CPA Accreditation (Governments ' minimum
Quality Control Standards) due to atrocious funding deficits. DrLofhouse
1457:. That means every 8 inches of your body must travel through the "ring" for a certain time, collecting gamma scientillations. I've been told (can't swear) that some of the newer scanners have 2 blocks of these 8 inch rings in a row, to give you more like 16 inches of height being counted at a time, so a "whole body" (they never count the body below the thighs-- nothing to see there usually) can be counted in just 3 sections. Usually a whole body PET does you from "eyes to thighs" that way, and takes 20 min to 40 min. The CT part is done in less than a minute and is over with, before you know it. It's the PET collection of radiation from the F-18 that takes all the time. And yes, usually if they'd bothered to get you into the machine and injected with isotope, they're not going to collect PET info for just a transverse slice 9 inches (or 18 inches) long! They usually go for the whole body, which is pelvis to neck, or might also include head.
1889:- there is plenty to be said that is specific to PET/CT in its own right, to warrant a specific article about it. Inclusion of that in the PET article makes it over-long. I came to the PET/CT article to find out exactly what the /CT part meant - I already knew a little about PET. The article helped me. This is absolutely useful encyclopaedic information, deserving its own article. Of course, all 3 articles can be considerably improved - but a merger will not help that. Instead, the PET/CT and PET/MRI should concentrate on the specifics of those, to avoid excess overlap. Looking further, I see there are plenty of entire books, and thousands of papers, and of course a great many magazine pieces that are specifically about PET/CT. I have no doubt there is plenty of information in reliable sources to support the separate article.
1014:
terms. Actually, there are many ways of doing this. The main article on PET scanning should probably not be too much longer, but long sections on ANY subtopic in PET scanning can be summarized in their own short sections, with a main article referenced there. Then, you can put in a lot more detail in that main article. This is how
Knowledge expands. The main rules here are: don't delete, improve! Next is BE BOLD in adding stuff. The worst that will happen if you know what you're talking about, (provided you don't hit a malicious delete-man), is that your section will be edited down, and the extra material offloaded to a subarticle. Don't worry too much about writing quality-- we need good information worst. Writing can be improved by secondary writers who have a lesser understanding of material. So go for it.
1656:
concept to a medical tool used in hospitals and laboratories everywhere... in the search for a workable model, great strides had been made by others over the decades, but it was Dr. Ter-Pogossian and his colleagues in St. Louis who produced a series of machines for commercial production and practical use in the 1970's... Early in his professional life, Dr. Ter-Pogossian built one of the first scanners to detect radioactivity concentrations in living material, as well as a tool for delivering radiation therapy for cancers of the cervix and uterus. In the early 1950's he recognized the potential of short-lived radioactive tracers, and he was one of the first to use them to find brain tumors and measure blood flow."
1627:. The balance between where info should go, and to what level of detail in main and subarticles is always tricky and subject to debate, and nobody will object if you tastefully copy stuff, or summarize stuff to here. Just so long as you don't MOVE anything wholesale, so it disappears THERE and REAPPEARS here. That's always bad when your target article is long, and the stuff you pilfer from is shorter. For example, the image you mention was once part of this article, and somebody felt the need to MOVE it to the FDG article, thus leaving nothing HERE. See the problem? I'll go and copy it, and leave a copy there. BTW, I agree with your taste, and like that image so much that it's been on my userpage for years!
349:
2058:"To conduct the scan, a short-lived radioactive tracer isotope is injected into the living subject (usually into blood circulation). Each tracer atom has been chemically incorporated into a biologically active molecule. There is a waiting period while the active molecule becomes concentrated in tissues of interest; then the subject is placed in the imaging scanner. The molecule most commonly used for this purpose is fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), a sugar, for which the waiting period is typically an hour. During the scan, a record of tissue concentration is made as the tracer decays.
1262:
developing ligands that reversibly bind to neuroreceptors in the brain. The isotope of choice is usually C-11, and so the compound must be able to be synthesized, injected in the subject and reach and pass its peak uptake all in a relatively short time, due to the short half life. Additionally, as the ligand gets metabolized in the liver, the metabolites that contain the C-11 cannot cross the blood brain barrier, or they will create a confound in the analysis of the kinetics. The result is many failed research tracers, but there are many successful ones as well.
31:
1732:
201:
1057:
contacting DNA won't do that. DNA is ionized (lots of negatives) and associates with positively ionized histones to be stored. Lots of ions in water are not bad, and in biology are normal. By the way, the atom the positron come from becomes a negative ion also, but this is soon fixed, as it picks up an H+ from solution and becomes a sugar hydroxyl. Again, no sweat, and generally no damage (due to the very small amounts of stuff made).
339:
318:
177:
1690:, not a cylinder. In other words, each tube detector can see the entire head, not just a single point in the head. Otherwise it could only pick up events that occur in the very center of the circle, and I thought maybe the ring of detectors was translated around to scan other points in the head, or that there were multiple rings each focused on a different point, but now I see that's not how it works.
1985:
with several insurance co.'s as well as a few for individuals without insurance. The lowest by far was $ 2,000 for a bill with a 50% discount. However, this is an outlier and the cost typically is $ 4,000 to $ 6,000 to the insurance co. Unfortunately, my data falls under the heading of original research. Regardless, something needs to be done to not seriously mislead the reader as to the cost.
2238:
638:
22:
250:
229:
95:
64:
1054:
So it's no problem. If you calculate the number of moles of ions created from a normal PET scan in an hour, it's tiny-- something on the order of 10^12, which is a picomole compared with millimolar concentrations of your normal cations. Or 100 nanocoulombs with assocated currents of 50 picoamps, compared with microamps produced in your heart and brain.
105:
427:
927:
signficant. Some studies have looked at 'threshold' values of SUV, below which an abnormality is unlikely to be significant (or above which an abnormality is likely to be significant). E.g. if PET can be used to assess a nodule in the lung. If the SUV of the nodule is higher than 2.5, some studies have suggested that it's likely to be cancer.
1043:(especially me) which material (the body or any other material) the electron is a part of? Because I had always thought that an annihilation of a sub-atom in the body would result in the atom concerned becoming a positively charged ion, and causing disruption in the atomic structure of the organs being built from these atoms. Thanks.
1124:) which eventually decays by self combination. Note that with the decay of the spin 0 state, the process occurs in approximately 100 ps with two gamma photons being created and emitted at 180 degrees, while the spin 1 state decay occurs much more slowly in approximately 100 ns, and creates 3 gamma photons. (see
1247:
into a positron emitter. It is true that FDG is by far the most widely used clinically, and it images metabolism, but theoretically PET can image anything. Is this too specific for the lead paragraph? I understand the desire to state the most popular use, but as it is worded I think it is a bit deceiving.
1246:
Hello, in the lead paragraph it says PET produces images of "metabolic activity" or something along those lines a couple of times. While this is the most popular use of PET, it is not necessarily the only use correct? PET can be used to image any process providing you can make the right biomolecule
1184:
Hi I have a quick question about why the gamma rays emmitted by the positron-electron annihilation does not produce two rays exactly 180 degrees apart? Doesn't this break the law of conservation of momentum? Or does the initial velocity of the positron towards an electron before they annihilate cause
1053:
Electrons wiped out by such positrons come from any old atom out there, and they do indeed become cations (positive ions) as a result. However, we're not talking about large numbers compared normal amounts of cations in the body (look at all those Na+,K+ and Mg++ floating around in all your fluids!).
1365:
I believe that this is an error in the HTML, which shows up differently for different users, or under different conditions for the same user. I can usually work around this by enlarging my browser window (just press F11; press it again to return to "normal"). I wish the maintainers of the code would
1276:
Another quibble: The lead states that the PET scan and CT image are done at the "same time." Correct me if I'm wrong but they are still two seperate scans that do not overlap temporally. They are done in one sitting, but it is not like the CT X-Ray tube is firing at the same time the PET scanner is
1155:
The distance any GIVEN particle travels in ANY material is related to its energy (all other things being equal), due to the fact the short wavelength particles, which of course are high energy particles, just "look" smaller, so have a smaller cross section. High energy electrons go a couple of mm in
926:
There still some debate as to whether the SUV is a useful measurement, from the point of diagnosis. Some abnormal areas (e.g. tumors), will have a higher uptake (and hence SUV) than normal tissues, and studies have suggested that the higher the activity of an abnormality, the more likely it is to be
1310:
I notice that the illustration showing how the process works shows the Sun
Microsystems brand name prominently, which bugs me. Would it be possible to redo this picture and remove this text and logo to make it generic and to remove the plug for the computer manufacturer? I'm sure Sun isn't the only
930:
However, given the different interpretations of SUV, different scan techniques, different times between injection and scanning at different hospitals, etc. some people argue that the SUV is relatively useless - as it's whole point is to allow comparisons between scans done at different times and at
1806:
If we were to merge, should we merge PET/MR with PET, or with MR? A similar argument follows for PET/CT. As this is a rather niche field, in the case of PET/MR at least, I think it is better to keep separate articles. On an administrative note, it is much easier to consider the two proposed merges
1787:
PET-CT has been proposed as a merge to this article for over a year, but this page hasn't been tagged. I have made this change and also propose that PET/MRI be merged here. This is because I believe the content would be better covered here, as the technology is very similar, as are the indications
2198:
1. Added a new para on PET for muscles. 2. Divided the section "Musculoskeletal imaging" into two parts: (1) PET for muscles, and (2) PET for bones. 3. Thinking of separating paragraphs for pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics paragraphs. I am now trying to re-write the whole article in simple
2030:
I guess this is purely subjective, but to me, the images of equipment standing empty lack visual interest. I think we should have a picture showing a human being, especially near the top of the article. I would suggest replacing the first one with this image, which shows a patient receiving care:
1984:
Cost per scan gives a figure of $ 1,100 for a PET scan which is woefully low and very misleading despite being properly sourced to a Cancer Care
Ontario publication. I think this figure may be the cost to the government itself. In the U.S., I have seen many PET scan bills from multiple hospitals
1824:
I agree it should be kept in it's niche discussion. The technology is vastly different than PET and even quite different than PET/CT, specifically in the advantages of MRI (motion, soft tissue) and the challenges of AC (Attenuation
Correction). While it appears to be a similar overall concept and
1056:
Far, far worse damage comes from the gamma, which is ionizing also, but the damage is not caused by the ion per se (it's called that only because this is how these things were DETECTED originally), but rather from the high energy interactions which provide enough energy to break DNA. A simple ion
901:
In words, the SUV is the uptake in the tissue divided by an estimate of the concentration in the body that was available to access the tissue. Concentration is approximated as the injected activity divided by body weight. The idea is to normalize the counts in the tissue to the counts that were
562:
And one should add in the context of combined PET/CT that this is always the case, since these are always the newer scanners and have the latest CT features, which are always VERY fast. The 1-minute full CT scan is typical there. It's the PET part that takes 10 or 15 minutes a section and will be
1534:
It is noninvasive in the sense that it shows internal processes in living animals without surgically exposing the tissues. This is true both in the research and clinical settings. In research, this allows chemical processes to be quantified without having to dissect tissues in order to measure
1409:
I was under the impression that a PET scan analyzes the patient's entire body, to find areas where the uptake of the tracer indicates possible cancer. A friend of mine has the impression that the scan is like an x-ray, in that it covers only a particular small segment of the body. Perhaps both
1194:
You guessed it, the momentum of the electron and positron at the instance of annihilation causes the angle to not be an exact 180 degrees. The angle is usually close enough to 180 and the diameter of scanner bore is short enough that it doesn't considerably skew localization of the annihilation
619:
For staging of lung cancer - the most important role for PET is determining whether a lung tumor has spread to the center of the chest (the mediastinum). However, even in this case there is a significant false positive rate (PPVÂ : 74-93%; false positive rate: 44.6%). There is also a significant
1655:
The current history section contradicts some facts, as apparently the first practical models were developed by Ter
Pogossian and his team. From the NY Times obit: "Dr. Michel Mathew Ter-Pogossian, who led the research that turned the positron emission tomography (PET) scanner from an intriguing
1427:
James, a PET scan is used to 'give an indication' whether an abnormal lump in the body is or is not an active 'cancer'. It isnt diagnostic. Any cell that takes up a lot of labelled glucose because it is rapidly metabolising sugar will show up as a bright spot on the PET scan. Your brain and
1261:
You are absolutely correct, which is why I added something to that effect in the "Radioisotopes" paragraph some time ago. It should be said, however, that not just any molecule can be radiolabeled and turned into a successful PET probe. For example, there are some pretty severe constraints in
1208:
Yes, in short, if the initial momentum of the positron toward the electron it was to annihilate was zero, the angle would be 180 degrees exactly. But remember that these positrons have all just been shot out of a nucleus in beta decay, so they're moving at quite a clip compared to the electrons
1150:
before encountering and annihilating with an electron." but i thought that as soon as a positron encounters an electron, it annihilates...and electrons are present anywhere and everywhere.so how is that positrons are able to travel upto distances as large as milimeters inside the body...please
1013:
Absolutely, if you know something about it. If it's arcane, you can put it in its own section toward the end of the article, as something like "Image reconstruction techniques important to PET" and reference it higher in the section which first mentions how the scanner opperates in more general
597:
PET is not specific, it merely tells you which areas of the body have faster metabolism than others. This means it picks up inflammation, infection and injuries as well as tumors. For this reason, PET is only suitable for diagnosing tumors in conjunction with other tests. Its other main role is
547:
Are the scan times quoted for PET/CT machines correct? The machine I have experience of - it's a couple of years old - requires significantly longer - the CT part takes approximately 10 to 14 minutes for a H&N CT, the slow time mainly being a result of the fact that the CT is very much a
1042:
I'm not much of an expert in these fields, being a year 9 science student, however in the article under the sub-heading 'How the scanner operates', it reads "the positron travels a few millimetres before encountering and annihilating with an electron." Could somebody clarify for everybody
1535:
tracers within them. In clinical applications, this means, for example, that tumors can be identified and localized without exploratory surgery. You are correct in the sense that there are some very small risks involved, but obviously not the same as surgical procedures.
2074:
It's my understanding that the desire to extend the CAT scan to puppies, gerbils, parrots‍—‌indeed the entire menagerie of domesticated animal companions‍—‌is what led to development of the more general PET scan. I'm puzzled that this isn't mentioned in the article.
1872:- These are different, related topics best covered in individual articles. The descriptions of PET, MRI, and CT in the combined procedure articles should indeed be brief and link back to the main articles for more detail but this does not mean a merge is warranted.
1410:
types of scans are used, depending on the circumstances? I don't see the answer to this question in the article. My guess was that, to the knowledgeable editors working on the article, the answer was so obvious that it didn't occur to anyone to spell it out!
897:
1091:
There is another interesting potential decay pathway of the positron - instead of annihilating with a free electron, the positron may strip off and then bind with (by coulomb attraction) a weakly bound electron, with the consequent formation of
670:
The SUV is a method for partially compensating for this. It corrects for the total amount of radioactivity given, and the approximate volume of the patient (volume is very difficult to measure, so it is estimated from weight).
666:
The problem with this unit is that the value depends on how much radioactive tracer was given to the patient, the size of the patient, how much time has passed since the injection (due to radioactive decay), etc.
605:
For example, a CT scan of the chest finds a single nodule in one lung. The question is then, "is this cancer?". PET scanning in this situation can tell you whether this nodule is likely, or unlikely to be tumor.
1910:. That is done here (in this article) already, please notice. This section can be expanded a bit if you want more summary. But don't shoe-horn in stuff you'll just have to spin off again (as it expands) later.
1004:
I haven't seen anything in this page related to the reconstruction process, which is a very important component of PET, because of the low data quality of the process. Do you think that's worth including here?
1514:
Under safety the article says that a PET scan is non-invasive. Yet the proecdure requires the injection of a radioactive substance on a biologically active molecule. Doesn't that make the procedure invasive?
1452:
The axial field of view (FOV) is the measure of what "length" of the body is being imaged at once in PET/CT, when you're doing just the PET part. That's about 8 inches right now, according to the literature
2009:
I think you guys are confusing the issue. The markup you
Americans choose to pay doesn't affect the cost to the provider. Mine was free as in no money or insurance required, scarcely a useful datapoint.
1619:
Don't suggest merges to long articles. This article is already long, and if we merge all that stuff in, we'd just be under the gun to summarize out the fludeoxyglucose stuff again to a subarticle, per
468:
916:
There are a variety of other methods used for calculating SUV, some correct for blood glucose concentration, some use lean body weight instead of total body weight, some estimate body surface area.
1906:
Agree so precisely with reasoning immediately above, that I won't repeat it. Leave summaries of PET-CT and PET/MRI here, if you want something here, and have the others as main articles, per
1125:
996:
right now i am working on a project.the topic is 'Development of a parameter which will distinguish between the TB n cancer' and this has to be done by kinetic analysis of PET-CT scan.
951:
in the "See also" section. I couldn't see how the two were related, so I think there needs to be some mention of antimatter in the article if it relates, or the link should be deleted.
676:
2394:
2469:
210:
186:
123:
78:
74:
462:
2199:
words to be understandable by non-technical audiences. Also, I feel that text related to SPECT should be removed. There should be separate pages on PET-CT, PET-MR, etc..
437:
127:
650:
PET Images are measured in different units like
Bacqurel per mili litre, SUV (Standard Uptake Value), Percentage and Counts/sec What does each of these units mean?
2384:
2434:
2148:
disease. The technology is based on new advances in sensing radiation combined with advanced reconstruction algorithms running on a single board teraflop system.
548:
low-grade CT scanner. I am not sure what other machines do, and obviously times are very much dependent on the protocol being used, area being imaged, etc., but
2454:
2399:
405:
300:
290:
620:
false-negative rate in this situation (up to 11.7%), so PET is usually used in conjuction with other tests, including exploratory surgery (mediastinoscopy).
1126:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14761021&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
2419:
191:
35:
1235:
Okay. If the angle is not exactly 180 degrees, can the origin point be triangulated? And would this be the point at which the annihilation took place?
2409:
2379:
167:
157:
2464:
395:
481:
2444:
2389:
266:
558:
With todays multi-detector helical CT scans, the scan time is much faster. We can do an "eyes to thighs" CT scan in less than a minute. NucsDoc
1956:
tag. You can put in the full reference name and tag anywhere in the article, as long as it's once and no more. The other tags are as described.
2449:
2439:
2424:
348:
1953:
Fixed. If you see how I did that, you can do it yourself next time. You just name the reference something with a <ref name="NameHere": -->
1717:
923:
with the highest activity is found, and it's activity is called 100%. The activity in other regions is then presented as a fraction of that.
1955:
tag. Then, when you need to refer to the same reference again, you put in the front tag and no reference body, and add the end </ref: -->
2036:
2429:
2414:
1890:
1579:
132:
2328:. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. The page can be accessed
2404:
2352:
1697:
1435:
371:
257:
234:
2459:
525:
1657:
1487:
SBHarris, thanks for the detailed information. Because you have a source you can cite, I hope you'll work that into the article.
1841:
1495:
1418:
2374:
1282:
1252:
955:
1788:
and outcomes. I think that coverage on this one page would improve the quality of the intended content of all three articles.
118:
69:
1454:
496:
362:
323:
2320:
2315:
2311:
44:
1326:
On the subject of bugs, I can't find Sun
Microsystems mentioned anywhere in any of the illustrations; I did, however,
1316:
1113:) which eventually decays by annihilation with a spin opposed electron from a neighboring atom in a process known as "
1751:"during which time it loses kinetic energy, until it decelerates to a point where it can interact with an electron."
892:{\displaystyle SUV={\frac {Uptake\ (MBq/ml)\times Patient\ weight\ (kg)}{Administered\ activity\ (MBq)\times 1000}}}
964:
2325:
1278:
1248:
2040:
1721:
1583:
2356:
2171:
2054:
Hello! There appears to be some erroneous text at the end of the first paragraph of the 'Descriptions -: -->
1943:
1894:
1701:
2318:
page has reached 108,412 bytes and I have more to write. I propose that section 'Bones' within the article
1623:. If you think there's some good stuff in the FDG article that needs summary HERE, feel free to do it, per
2337:
2207:
2180:
1812:
1439:
1312:
2351:
Is this test something like nuclear radioactive iodine treatments like I took for thyroid cancer in 2017
2293:
2289:
1939:
1679:
1540:
1521:
1296:
1267:
952:
907:
529:
512:"they would be exactly opposite in their center of mass frame but the scanner has no way to know this".
50:
2002:
1129:
2281:
2015:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1693:
1492:
1431:
1415:
979:
934:
621:
521:
476:
21:
2247:
1664:
1605:
1536:
1292:
1263:
903:
1998:
370:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
265:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2137:
1997:
I agree with TL36. My insurance company and I were just charged $ 8500 here in central Florida.
1793:
1757:
1683:
1609:
1601:
1569:
1565:
1082:
1044:
978:
is followed. However, I see your point that it would be sensible to mention this in the article.
663:
is a measure of the concentration of radioactity within a region. One Bequerel is one count/sec.
2305:
1391:
1658:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/21/us/michel-m-ter-pogossian-71-led-research-on-pet-scanner.html
2333:
2203:
2175:
1808:
1624:
1335:
641:
Image pathologique révélant une métastase ganglionnaire par tomographie à émission de positon.
610:
2156:
2117:
1877:
1860:
1516:
1355:
1825:
technology, application of this technology has made it clear that it is vastly different.
602:
of tumors i.e. assessing the extent of a tumor that has already been found by other means.
2360:
2341:
2301:
2285:
2211:
2185:
2160:
2104:
2084:
2044:
2019:
2011:
1994:
1973:
1947:
1927:
1898:
1881:
1864:
1845:
1816:
1797:
1761:
1731:
1725:
1705:
1668:
1644:
1613:
1587:
1544:
1529:
1499:
1488:
1474:
1443:
1422:
1411:
1399:
1395:
1359:
1339:
1320:
1300:
1286:
1271:
1256:
1226:
1202:
1189:
1173:
1136:
1085:
1074:
1047:
1031:
982:
968:
937:
911:
624:
580:
533:
110:
1455:
http://jnumedmtg.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/48/MeetingAbstracts_2/46P-a
2265:
2098:
2080:
1990:
1660:
1006:
442:
354:
2032:
1558:
1156:
skin for radiotherapy, and Mev electrons up to several cm. A positron's no different.
200:
2368:
2297:
2277:
2273:
1970:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1924:
1921:
1916:
1911:
1789:
1753:
1641:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1471:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1223:
1220:
1215:
1210:
1170:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1133:
1071:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1028:
1025:
1020:
1015:
577:
574:
569:
564:
1604:
that could be merged here, including a cool animated 3-D PET scan of a human torso.
634:
Hello, I come from french Knowledge, I upload a new image for oncology part. Enjoy !
2269:
1907:
1620:
1331:
1151:
somebody explain this...urgent ,specialy for me...i have a related project even...
262:
176:
1350:
Under description, the picture obscures some of the text. Not sure how to fix it?
616:
of a "positive" PET scan was 82%-94% depending on the precise PET technique used.
2152:
1873:
1856:
1351:
1094:
613:
338:
317:
2329:
2145:
1573:
948:
344:
100:
2129:
2093:
2076:
1986:
1199:
1186:
656:
637:
563:
much harder to speed up with future tech (though of course it will happen).
1686:? It wasn't obvious to me that each detector can pick up activity within a
1576:, Rolf Jonsson (whiplash patient and chairman of Swedish Whiplash Society)
902:
available to be taken up by the tissue, or to "standardize" the uptake.
2133:
975:
1781:
1716:
Maybe remove it or replace it with an appropriate alternate reference?
1106:
can exist in either of 2 quasi-stable states - a triplet spin 1 state (
367:
249:
228:
1366:
either fix this, or issue better guidelines for placing illustrations.
2141:
1776:
1680:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/imgnuk/petscang.gif
1387:
1146:
i just want to know about the line that says "the positron travels a
490:
457:
1130:
http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/photo/people/leighton/thefinalcheck.pdf
1102:), which is also sometimes referred to as "a light hydrogen atom".
426:
94:
63:
920:
660:
636:
1551:
552:
the CT part takes significantly longer than 30 seconds. zebdee
130:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at
2231:
1684:
http://www.whatisnuclearmedicine.com/upload/PET-SCAN-Brain.jpg
421:
15:
612:. In the case of the solitary pulmonary nodule scenario, the
122:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the
974:
Positrons are antimatter. This is clear if the wiki link to
435:
for Knowledge's health content are defined in the guideline
199:
175:
591:
What are the percentages of false positives for PET scans?
2217:
SPLITÂ : New Page for Musculoskeletal Imaging using NaF PET
2144:
pathways for studying neurodegenerative diseases such as
1185:
the final gamma rays to not be 180 degrees apart? Thanks
1327:
609:
There was a recent review of PET imaging in lung cancer
515:
This is unclear. Is it because of relativistic speeds?
2033:
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:PET_scan_image3699-PH.jpg
679:
2310:. I have noticed your valuable contribution on this
2140:
the isotope into a pure form in order to scan human
366:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
261:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1954:
tag, with full reference as usual and </ref: -->
1559:
http://www.euronews.net/2011/11/23/x-rays-see-pain/
482:
clinical publications about evidence-based medicine
891:
919:Percentage is a cruder method of correction. The
438:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
2245:It has been suggested that this page should be
2136:channel if an inexpensive way could be found to
1772:The following articles are proposed for merge;
126:and that biomedical information in any article
2395:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Technology
2202:Senior editors, please keep an eye. Thank you
2066:Presumably this text was left in by accident?
1386:This article duplicates and overlaps with the
124:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles
8:
1651:History section missing Michel Ter Pogossian
1674:Add an image for the direction of detection
1390:article, with which it should be combined.
1081:Great, thanks a million. A+, here I come!
2470:B-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
1328:remove a reference to Siemens in a caption
947:I was just curious why there is a link to
312:
223:
58:
2116:Moving this here as it is unsourced, per
727:
692:
678:
543:Scan durations quoted for PET/CT machines
463:review articles from the past five years
518:If so, perhaps it should be mentioned.
314:
225:
60:
19:
2385:Knowledge vital articles in Technology
2435:Unknown-importance neurology articles
2324:be split into a separate page called
2128:There are ongoing studies into using
1938:Can someone please help fix? Thanks!
1855:Think this would be a very good move
7:
2455:Mid-importance neuroscience articles
2400:B-Class vital articles in Technology
2195:Hi, I made few changes as follows:
491:Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
360:This article is within the scope of
255:This article is within the scope of
116:This article is within the scope of
1741:To clarify, this is the ref in the
1195:event. 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
133:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine
49:It is of interest to the following
2420:High-importance radiology articles
1564:Some highlights: Torsetn Gordh of
275:Knowledge:WikiProject Neuroscience
14:
1600:There's a bunch of good stuff at
1117:", or in a singlet spin 0 state (
488:Other potential sources include:
278:Template:WikiProject Neuroscience
2410:Mid-importance medicine articles
2380:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
2236:
1730:
425:
347:
337:
316:
248:
227:
128:use high-quality medical sources
103:
93:
62:
29:
20:
2465:Mid-importance physics articles
2170:The Merriam-Webster dictionary
992:Kinetic Analysis of PET-CT scan
400:This article has been rated as
295:This article has been rated as
162:This article has been rated as
2445:All WikiProject Medicine pages
2390:B-Class level-5 vital articles
1934:Refs 22 & 39 are identical
983:12:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
969:04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
877:
865:
796:
787:
738:
715:
142:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine
1:
2450:B-Class neuroscience articles
2440:Neurology task force articles
2425:Radiology task force articles
2085:23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
1588:23:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
1530:16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
1405:Query -- scope of a PET scan?
1203:00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1142:Annihilation after some time?
1137:06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1086:09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
1075:08:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
1048:09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
449:sources of information about
380:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
374:and see a list of open tasks.
269:and see a list of open tasks.
208:This article is supported by
184:This article is supported by
145:Template:WikiProject Medicine
2321:Positron Emission Tomography
2316:Positron emission tomography
2312:Positron emission tomography
2105:03:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
2045:20:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
1882:18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
1865:20:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
1846:17:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
1500:19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
1475:01:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
1444:00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
1423:04:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
1311:one making this equipment. +
1032:09:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
581:09:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
451:Positron emission tomography
383:Template:WikiProject Physics
1817:12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
1798:09:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
1749:for the phrase which reads:
1706:15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
1306:Brand names in illustration
1190:09:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
2486:
2430:B-Class neurology articles
2415:B-Class radiology articles
2342:00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
2212:14:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
2186:12:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
2174:it should be hyphenated.--
1974:03:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
1948:02:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
1928:03:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
1678:Can you add an image like
1360:18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1340:03:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
1321:20:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
1287:02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1257:02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1174:16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
406:project's importance scale
301:project's importance scale
168:project's importance scale
2405:B-Class medicine articles
2361:23:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
2161:19:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
2132:40 as this decays with a
2005:) 08:33, 15 January 2015
1995:02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
1899:04:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
1669:07:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
1645:20:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
1614:18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
1545:04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
1400:20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
1377:02:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
938:21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
912:04:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
646:Data units for PET Images
625:15:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
534:08:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
399:
332:
294:
243:
207:
183:
161:
88:
57:
2460:B-Class physics articles
2070:Relationship to CAT scan
2020:08:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
1762:23:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
1726:06:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
1277:picking up Gamma is it?
1180:Conservation of Momentum
258:WikiProject Neuroscience
211:the Neurology task force
187:the Radiology task force
1301:05:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1272:05:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
1227:07:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2375:B-Class vital articles
2251:into multiple pages. (
2055:Operations' section:
2050:Probable Typo Observed
1242:Lead Paragraph Quibble
893:
642:
204:
180:
1712:Ref 12 is a dead link
1279:CallipygianSchoolGirl
1249:CallipygianSchoolGirl
1115:pick-off annihilation
894:
640:
281:neuroscience articles
203:
179:
36:level-5 vital article
2326:PET for Bone Imaging
1038:Annihilation in body
677:
469:free review articles
445:. Here are links to
119:WikiProject Medicine
2314:article/page. This
1561:23/11/11 13:07 CET
1198:Thanks for that!!!
1009:November 3rd, 2006
363:WikiProject Physics
1602:fluorodeoxyglucose
1596:fluorodeoxyglucose
1570:Radioactive tracer
1566:Uppsala University
1000:PET Reconstruction
889:
643:
550:(in my experience)
441:and are typically
205:
181:
45:content assessment
2260:
2259:
2107:
1849:
1832:comment added by
1696:comment added by
1550:Resource "seeing
1498:
1434:comment added by
1421:
1313:ILike2BeAnonymous
931:different sites.
887:
864:
838:
786:
766:
714:
524:comment added by
505:
504:
420:
419:
416:
415:
412:
411:
311:
310:
307:
306:
222:
221:
218:
217:
148:medicine articles
2477:
2309:
2240:
2239:
2232:
2229:
2228:
2224:
2101:
2096:
2090:
1965:
1960:
1919:
1914:
1848:
1826:
1736:Moved to the end
1734:
1708:
1636:
1631:
1525:
1491:
1466:
1461:
1446:
1414:
1218:
1213:
1165:
1160:
1066:
1061:
1023:
1018:
960:
898:
896:
895:
890:
888:
886:
863:
837:
799:
785:
765:
731:
713:
693:
572:
567:
536:
508:Unclear sentence
429:
422:
388:
387:
386:physics articles
384:
381:
378:
357:
352:
351:
341:
334:
333:
328:
320:
313:
283:
282:
279:
276:
273:
252:
245:
244:
239:
231:
224:
150:
149:
146:
143:
140:
113:
108:
107:
106:
97:
90:
89:
84:
81:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
2485:
2484:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2365:
2364:
2349:
2282:Joao Sousa (UU)
2263:
2256:
2241:
2237:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2220:
2219:
2193:
2168:
2114:
2099:
2094:
2072:
2052:
2028:
1982:
1963:
1958:
1936:
1917:
1912:
1827:
1770:
1718:193.143.201.114
1714:
1691:
1676:
1653:
1634:
1629:
1598:
1556:
1528:
1523:
1512:
1464:
1459:
1429:
1407:
1384:
1348:
1308:
1291:Right again! I
1244:
1216:
1211:
1182:
1163:
1158:
1148:few millimetres
1144:
1123:
1112:
1064:
1059:
1040:
1021:
1016:
1002:
994:
967:
956:
945:
800:
694:
675:
674:
648:
632:
589:
570:
565:
545:
519:
510:
447:possibly useful
443:review articles
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:
353:
346:
326:
280:
277:
274:
271:
270:
237:
192:High-importance
147:
144:
141:
138:
137:
111:Medicine portal
109:
104:
102:
82:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
2483:
2481:
2473:
2472:
2467:
2462:
2457:
2452:
2447:
2442:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2422:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2402:
2397:
2392:
2387:
2382:
2377:
2367:
2366:
2348:
2345:
2294:190.145.38.136
2290:202.142.86.208
2258:
2257:
2244:
2242:
2235:
2218:
2215:
2192:
2189:
2167:
2164:
2126:
2125:
2113:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2071:
2068:
2065:
2060:aghdghsghfvhgf
2051:
2048:
2037:76.169.116.244
2027:
2024:
2023:
2022:
1981:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1935:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1901:
1884:
1867:
1850:
1819:
1785:
1784:
1779:
1769:
1768:Proposed merge
1766:
1765:
1764:
1752:
1750:
1745:subsection of
1713:
1710:
1675:
1672:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1597:
1594:
1592:
1555:
1548:
1520:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1406:
1403:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1368:
1367:
1347:
1346:Slight Problem
1344:
1343:
1342:
1307:
1304:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1209:around them.
1181:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1143:
1140:
1121:
1110:
1090:
1079:
1078:
1039:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1007:User:Sjayanthi
1001:
998:
993:
990:
988:
986:
985:
963:
944:
941:
885:
882:
879:
876:
873:
870:
867:
862:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
841:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
818:
815:
812:
809:
806:
803:
798:
795:
792:
789:
784:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
730:
726:
723:
720:
717:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
691:
688:
685:
682:
647:
644:
631:
628:
588:
585:
584:
583:
544:
541:
539:
509:
506:
503:
502:
501:
500:
486:
473:
454:
430:
418:
417:
414:
413:
410:
409:
402:Mid-importance
398:
392:
391:
389:
372:the discussion
359:
358:
355:Physics portal
342:
330:
329:
327:Mid‑importance
321:
309:
308:
305:
304:
297:Mid-importance
293:
287:
286:
284:
267:the discussion
253:
241:
240:
238:Mid‑importance
232:
220:
219:
216:
215:
206:
196:
195:
182:
172:
171:
164:Mid-importance
160:
154:
153:
151:
115:
114:
98:
86:
85:
83:Mid‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2482:
2471:
2468:
2466:
2463:
2461:
2458:
2456:
2453:
2451:
2448:
2446:
2443:
2441:
2438:
2436:
2433:
2431:
2428:
2426:
2423:
2421:
2418:
2416:
2413:
2411:
2408:
2406:
2403:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2393:
2391:
2388:
2386:
2383:
2381:
2378:
2376:
2373:
2372:
2370:
2363:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2346:
2344:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2332:. Thank you
2331:
2327:
2323:
2322:
2317:
2313:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2254:
2250:
2249:
2243:
2234:
2233:
2225:
2221:NaF PET": -->
2216:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2200:
2196:
2190:
2188:
2187:
2183:
2182:
2177:
2173:
2165:
2163:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2149:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2119:
2111:
2106:
2103:
2102:
2097:
2091:Tough crowd.
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2069:
2067:
2063:
2061:
2056:
2049:
2047:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1980:Cost per scan
1979:
1975:
1972:
1969:
1966:
1961:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1940:Deluxegourmet
1933:
1929:
1926:
1923:
1920:
1915:
1909:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:88.104.10.105
1888:
1885:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1868:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1823:
1820:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1783:
1780:
1778:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1711:
1709:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1673:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1650:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1632:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1595:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:99.181.131.33
1577:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1560:
1553:
1549:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1519:
1518:
1509:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1462:
1456:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1404:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1305:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1241:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1214:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1161:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1141:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1120:
1116:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1083:210.11.82.107
1077:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1045:210.11.82.107
1037:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1008:
999:
997:
991:
989:
984:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
970:
966:
961:
959:
954:
950:
942:
940:
939:
936:
932:
928:
924:
922:
917:
914:
913:
909:
905:
899:
883:
880:
874:
871:
868:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
845:
842:
839:
834:
831:
828:
825:
822:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
793:
790:
782:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
762:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
735:
732:
728:
724:
721:
718:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
689:
686:
683:
680:
672:
668:
664:
662:
658:
655:
651:
645:
639:
635:
629:
627:
626:
623:
617:
615:
611:
607:
603:
601:
596:
592:
586:
582:
579:
576:
573:
568:
561:
560:
559:
557:
553:
551:
542:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
523:
516:
513:
507:
499:
498:
493:
492:
487:
484:
483:
478:
477:TRIP database
474:
471:
470:
465:
464:
459:
456:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
434:
433:Ideal sources
431:
428:
424:
423:
407:
403:
397:
394:
393:
390:
373:
369:
365:
364:
356:
350:
345:
343:
340:
336:
335:
331:
325:
322:
319:
315:
302:
298:
292:
289:
288:
285:
268:
264:
260:
259:
254:
251:
247:
246:
242:
236:
233:
230:
226:
213:
212:
202:
198:
197:
193:
190:(assessed as
189:
188:
178:
174:
173:
169:
165:
159:
156:
155:
152:
135:
134:
129:
125:
121:
120:
112:
101:
99:
96:
92:
91:
87:
80:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2353:208.82.44.28
2350:
2334:Earthianyogi
2319:
2261:
2252:
2246:
2204:Earthianyogi
2201:
2197:
2194:
2179:
2176:Leptictidium
2169:
2150:
2127:
2115:
2092:
2073:
2064:
2059:
2057:
2053:
2029:
2026:better image
1983:
1937:
1903:
1886:
1869:
1852:
1828:— Preceding
1821:
1809:GyroMagician
1807:separately.
1803:
1786:
1771:
1747:Descriptions
1746:
1742:
1735:
1729:
1715:
1698:71.167.71.24
1692:— Preceding
1687:
1677:
1654:
1599:
1591:
1578:
1563:
1557:
1533:
1522:
1515:
1513:
1436:79.77.93.167
1426:
1408:
1385:
1373:
1372:
1349:
1309:
1290:
1275:
1260:
1245:
1197:
1193:
1183:
1147:
1145:
1118:
1114:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1093:
1089:
1080:
1055:
1041:
1003:
995:
987:
957:
946:
933:
929:
925:
918:
915:
900:
673:
669:
665:
653:
652:
649:
633:
618:
608:
604:
599:
594:
593:
590:
555:
554:
549:
546:
538:
520:— Preceding
517:
514:
511:
495:
489:
480:
467:
461:
450:
446:
436:
432:
401:
361:
296:
272:Neuroscience
263:Neuroscience
256:
235:Neuroscience
209:
185:
163:
131:
117:
51:WikiProjects
34:
2112:unsourced 1
1572:mixed with
1430:—Preceding
1382:Duplication
1095:positronium
943:Antimatter?
614:specificity
587:PET results
526:82.68.94.86
2369:Categories
2302:Wtmitchell
2286:Le Creusot
2262:Dear All,
2146:Alzheimers
2012:Greglocock
1834:Kkadams115
1625:WP:SOFIXIT
1574:D-Deprenyl
1489:JamesMLane
1412:JamesMLane
980:ChumpusRex
949:antimatter
935:ChumpusRex
622:ChumpusRex
466:(limit to
2266:ColinFine
2191:REWRITING
2130:potassium
2118:WP:VERIFY
1743:Operation
1661:Thinkfood
1374:Solo Owl
661:mililitre
657:Becquerel
630:New image
479:provides
460:provides
79:Neurology
75:Radiology
39:is rated
2347:Question
2298:Kirigiri
2278:Kablammo
2274:Sbharris
2134:positron
2124:Research
1842:contribs
1830:unsigned
1754:SBaker43
1694:unsigned
1606:Gbuchana
1537:Markssss
1432:unsigned
1293:Markssss
1264:Markssss
1134:Duedilly
976:positron
904:Markssss
522:unsigned
139:Medicine
70:Medicine
2304:, and
2270:Keith D
2253:discuss
1999:kolia_w
1853:Support
1790:LT90001
1782:PET/MRI
1332:Neparis
654:Answer:
600:staging
595:Answer:
556:Answer:
404:on the
377:Physics
368:Physics
324:Physics
299:on the
166:on the
41:B-class
2166:Hyphen
2153:Jytdog
2142:neural
2138:enrich
1904:Oppose
1887:Oppose
1874:VQuakr
1870:Oppose
1857:Iztwoz
1822:OPPOSE
1804:OPPOSE
1777:PET-CT
1510:Safety
1388:PET-CT
1352:Nrusse
965:(talk)
458:PubMed
47:scale.
2306:LM200
2248:split
1971:arris
1925:arris
1908:WP:SS
1642:arris
1621:WP:SS
1472:arris
1392:Fbarw
1224:arris
1171:arris
1072:arris
1029:arris
953:cøøki
921:voxel
578:arris
28:This
2357:talk
2338:talk
2330:here
2223:edit
2208:talk
2172:says
2157:talk
2081:talk
2077:EEng
2041:talk
2016:talk
2003:talk
1991:talk
1987:TL36
1944:talk
1895:talk
1878:talk
1861:talk
1838:talk
1813:talk
1794:talk
1758:talk
1722:talk
1702:talk
1688:cone
1665:talk
1610:talk
1584:talk
1552:pain
1541:talk
1524:talk
1440:talk
1396:talk
1356:talk
1336:talk
1330:. -
1317:talk
1297:talk
1283:talk
1268:talk
1253:talk
1200:Ongy
1187:Ongy
1128:and
908:talk
884:1000
659:per
530:talk
494:and
475:The
2151:--
2100:Eng
1682:or
1568:,
1132:)
497:CDC
396:Mid
291:Mid
158:Mid
2371::
2359:)
2340:)
2300:,
2296:,
2292:,
2288:,
2284:,
2280:,
2276:,
2272:,
2268:,
2210:)
2184:)
2181:mt
2159:)
2120::
2083:)
2062:"
2043:)
2035:--
2018:)
1993:)
1946:)
1897:)
1880:)
1863:)
1844:)
1840:•
1815:)
1796:)
1760:)
1724:)
1704:)
1667:)
1612:)
1586:)
1543:)
1517:VR
1442:)
1398:)
1371:--
1358:)
1338:)
1319:)
1299:)
1285:)
1270:)
1255:)
1104:Ps
1100:Ps
962:Ξ
910:)
881:Ă—
742:Ă—
532:)
194:).
77:/
73::
2355:(
2336:(
2308::
2264:@
2255:)
2227:]
2206:(
2178:(
2155:(
2095:E
2079:(
2039:(
2014:(
2001:(
1989:(
1968:H
1964:B
1959:S
1942:(
1922:H
1918:B
1913:S
1893:(
1876:(
1859:(
1836:(
1811:(
1792:(
1756:(
1720:(
1700:(
1663:(
1639:H
1635:B
1630:S
1608:(
1582:(
1554:"
1539:(
1496:c
1493:t
1469:H
1465:B
1460:S
1438:(
1419:c
1416:t
1394:(
1354:(
1334:(
1315:(
1295:(
1281:(
1266:(
1251:(
1221:H
1217:B
1212:S
1168:H
1164:B
1159:S
1122:0
1119:S
1111:1
1108:S
1098:(
1069:H
1065:B
1060:S
1026:H
1022:B
1017:S
958:É™
906:(
878:)
875:q
872:B
869:M
866:(
861:y
858:t
855:i
852:v
849:i
846:t
843:c
840:a
835:d
832:e
829:r
826:e
823:t
820:s
817:i
814:n
811:i
808:m
805:d
802:A
797:)
794:g
791:k
788:(
783:t
780:h
777:g
774:i
771:e
768:w
763:t
760:n
757:e
754:i
751:t
748:a
745:P
739:)
736:l
733:m
729:/
725:q
722:B
719:M
716:(
711:e
708:k
705:a
702:t
699:p
696:U
690:=
687:V
684:U
681:S
575:H
571:B
566:S
528:(
485:.
472:)
453:.
408:.
303:.
214:.
170:.
136:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.