ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2015
Commentary: an eye on PET quantification.
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement of Hypothalamic Glucose Under Euglycemia and Hyperglycemia by MRI at 3T.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017Article
- Reproducibility of Quantitative Brain Imaging Using a PET-Only and a Combined PET/MR System.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Impact of New Scatter Correction Strategies on High-Resolution Research Tomograph Brain PET Studies.Molecular imaging and biology · 2016Article
- Precision and accuracy of clinical quantification of myocardial blood flow by dynamic PET: A technical perspective.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) is generally considered to be a quantitative imaging modality, allowing assessment of regional differences in radiotracer accumulation and the derivation of quantitative physiological information. Due to the increasing complexity of PET technology, the quantitative accuracy of PET images has to be continually reassessed if PET is to maintain its quantitative reputation. In this commentary, we discuss the results from a recent inter-scanner study in which the quantitative outcome measures from human studies were compared for three different radiotracers. The approach is a useful complement to standard phantom tests such as those prescribed by NEMA, but the resulting data are more difficult to interpret.
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.