ReviewMolecular imaging and biology2013
Beta-cell imaging: call for evidence-based and scientific approach.
Review in Molecular imaging and biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- New Insights and Potential Therapeutic Interventions in Metabolic Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Imaging Beta-Cell Function in the Pancreas of Non-Human Primates Using a Zinc-Sensitive MRI Contrast Agent.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Article
- Molecular imaging of β-cells: diabetes and beyond.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2019Review
- Futility of attempts to detect and quantify beta cells by PET imaging in the pancreas: why it is time to abandon the approach.Diabetologia · 2018Review
- Intraoperative Ultrasound: A Tool to Support Tissue-Sparing Curative Pancreatic Resection in Focal Congenital Hyperinsulinism.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2018Article
- Failed PET Application Attempts in the Past, Can We Avoid Them in the Future?Molecular imaging and biology · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Cu-64 and Ga-68 Radiolabeled Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists as PET Tracers for Pancreatic β cell Imaging.Molecular imaging and biology · 2016Article
- Growing applications of FDG PET-CT imaging in non-oncologic conditions.Journal of biomedical research · 2015Article
- NIH workshop on clinical translation of molecular imaging probes and technology--meeting report.Molecular imaging and biology · 2014Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdvances in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging have provided opportunities to develop radiotracers specific for imaging insulin-producing pancreatic β-cells. However, a host of lingering questions should be addressed before these radiotracers are advocated for noninvasive quantification of β-cell mass (BCM) in vivo in the native pancreas.
methodWe provide an overview of tetrabenazine-based PET tracers developed to image and quantify BCM and discuss several theoretical, technical, and biological limitations of applying these tracers in clinical practice. DISCUSSION: VMAT2, a transporter protein expressed on pancreatic β-cells, has been advocated as a promising target for PET imaging tracers, such as dihydrotetrabenazine. However, the lack of radiotracer specificity for these proteins hampers their clinical application. Another important argument against their use is a striking discrepancy between radiotracer uptake and BCM in subjects with type I diabetes mellitus and healthy controls. Additionally, technical issues, such as the finite spatial resolution of PET, partial volume effects, and movement of the pancreas during respiration, impede PET imaging as a viable option for BCM quantification in the foreseeable future.
conclusionThe assertion that BCM can be accurately quantified by tetrabenazine derived β-cell-specific radiotracers as density per unit volume of pancreatic tissue is not justifiable at this time. The fallacy of these claims can be explained by technical as well as biological facts that have been disregarded and ignored in the literature.
Indexed as
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.