Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26601035›Full record

ArticleJournal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology2014

A Review of NIST Primary Activity Standards for (18)F: 1982 to 2013.

Denis E Bergeron, Jeffrey T Cessna, Bert M Coursey, Ryan Fitzgerald, Brian E Zimmerman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The next generation of current measurement for ionization chambers.Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine · 2020
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Denis E BergeronNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Jeffrey T CessnaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Bert M CourseyNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Ryan FitzgeraldNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Brian E ZimmermanNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The new NIST activity standardization for (18)F, described in 2014 in Applied Radiation and Isotopes (v. 85, p. 77), differs from results obtained between 1998 and 2008 by 4 %. The new results are considered to be very reliable; they are based on a battery of robust primary measurement techniques and bring the NIST standard into accord with other national metrology institutes. This paper reviews all ten (18)F activity standardizations performed at NIST from 1982 to 2013, with a focus on experimental variables that might account for discrepancies. We have identified many possible sources of measurement bias and eliminated most of them, but we have not adequately accounted for the 1998-2008 results.

Indexed as

anticoincidencediscrepancyF-18ionization chamberliquid scintillation countingprimary standard

Identifiers

PMID26601035
PMCPMC4487292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.