ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2017
Longitudinal monitoring of reconstructed activity concentration on a clinical time-of-flight PET/CT scanner.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2017. 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.
- Q-Bot: automatic DICOM metadata monitoring for the next level of quality management in nuclear medicine.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) images are potential quantitative biomarkers. Understanding long-term (months/years) biomarker variability is important for establishing confidence intervals on studies using such biomarkers over these time frames. PET biomarkers are derived from activity concentration ([Formula: see text]) extracted from PET images. Over 30 months, we measured the stability of decay-normalized counts ([Formula: see text]) and [Formula: see text] by scanning the same 4.5-cm-diameter Ge-68 cylinder weekly, the same Na-22 point source daily, and a refilled 20-cm F-18 cylinder phantom monthly on a clinical TOF-PET/CT scanner. Longitudinal and adjacent-measurement variability was characterized. We found no drift in [Formula: see text] or [Formula: see text] for properly calibrated images over 24 months. During this time, [Formula: see text] ranged [Formula: see text] to 6% for count-matched Ge-68 and F-18 images, with coefficient of variation (COV) across time of 2.3% (Ge-68, 81 scans) and 3.2% (F-18, 24 scans). At typical patient image count levels the Ge-68 [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) COV across time was 6.9% (9.6%). Changes in [Formula: see text] between adjacent F-18 scans ([Formula: see text]) ranged between [Formula: see text], with corresponding date-matched changes in Ge-68 [Formula: see text] ranging [Formula: see text]. We recommend (1) tracking trends in [Formula: see text] with image [Formula: see text] as a check of quantitative data corrections/calibrations and (2) tracking both mean and COV of [Formula: see text] (single time point measures) to hundredths precision using standardized uptake values.
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.