ArticleInternational journal of molecular imaging2011
Comparison of in leakage from labeled endocardial and epicardial cells: impact on modeling viability of cells to be transplanted into myocardium.
Article in International journal of molecular imaging, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the myocardial clearance of endothelial progenitor cells injected early versus late into reperfused or sustained occlusion myocardial infarction.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction. Previously we proposed a cellular imaging technique to determine the surviving fraction of transplanted cells in vivo. Epicardial kinetics using Indium-111 determined the Debris Impulse Response Function (DIRF) and leakage coefficient parameters. Convolution-based modeling which corrected for these signal contributions indicated that (111)In activity was quantitative of cell viability with half-lives within 20 hrs to 37 days. We determine if the 37-day upper limit remains valid for endocardial injections by comparing previous epicardial cell leakage parameter estimates to those for endocardial cells. Methods. Normal canine myocardium was injected ((111)In-tropolone) epicardially (9 injections) or endocardially (10 injections). Continuous whole body and SPECT scans for 5 hours were acquired with three weekly follow-up imaging sessions up to 20-26 days. Time-activity curves evaluated each injection type. Results. The epicardial and endocardial kinetics were not significantly different (Epi: 1286 ± 253; Endo: 1567 ± 470 hours P = .62). Conclusion. The original epicardial estimate of leakage kinetics has been validated for use in endocardial injections.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.