ReviewCardiology clinics2016
Automated Quantitative Nuclear Cardiology Methods.
Review in Cardiology clinics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of PET quantitative methods for myocardial viability assessment in CAD patients and its prognostic value.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Fully automatic left ventricle segmentation in [Formula: see text]Rb PET/CT Using a semi-supervised nnU-net.EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- The diagnostic role of resting myocardial blood flow in STEMI patients after revascularization.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Preparing for the Artificial Intelligence Revolution in Nuclear Cardiology.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
- Automated Analysis vs. Expert Reading in Nuclear Cardiology: Correlations with the Angiographic Score.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging SPECT Parameters and Pharmacologic Stress Test with Adenosine Versus Coronary Angiography Findings: Are They Diagnostically Concordant?Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2019Article
- Myocardial perfusion and left ventricular quantitative parameters obtained using gated myocardial SPECT: Comparison of three software packages.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative analysis of SPECT and PET has become a major part of nuclear cardiology practice. Current software tools can automatically segment the left ventricle, quantify function, establish myocardial perfusion maps, and estimate global and local measures of stress/rest perfusion, all with minimal user input. State-of-the-art automated techniques have been shown to offer high diagnostic accuracy for detecting coronary artery disease, as well as predict prognostic outcomes. This article briefly reviews these techniques, highlights several challenges, and discusses the latest developments.
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.