ArticlePloS one2017
Standardized Input Function for 18F-FDG PET Studies in Mice: A Cautionary Study.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variability of the arterial input function in small-animal dynamic PET imaging.EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- Quantitative dynamic granzyme B PET imaging to characterize novel combination immunotherapy response in preclinical glioblastoma models.Theranostics · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Arterial Input Function Interpolation Methods for Patlak Plot Analysis ofIEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2024Article
- PET AIF estimation when available ROI data is impacted by dispersive and/or background effects.Physics in medicine and biology · 2023Article
- A guideline proposal for mice preparation and care inEJNMMI research · 2022Review
- Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the studyThe aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a standardized arterial input function (SAIF) for positron emission tomography 18F-FDG studies in mice. In particular, we tested whether the same SAIF could be applied to populations of mice whose fasting conditions differed.
methodsThe SAIF was first created from a population of fasting mice (n = 11) and validated within this group using a correlation analysis and a leave-one-out procedure. Then, the SAIF was prospectively applied to a population of non-fasting mice (n = 16). The SAIFs were scaled using a single individual blood sample taken 25 min after injection. The metabolic rates of glucose (CMRglc) calculated with the SAIFs were compared with the reference values obtained by full arterial sampling (AIF).
resultsIn both populations of mice, CMRglc values showed a very small bias but an important variability. The SAIF/AIF CMRglc ratio in the fasting mice was 0.97 ± 0.22 (after excluding a major outlier). The SAIF/AIF CMRglc ratio in the non-fasting mice was 1.04 ± 0.22. This variability was due to the presence of cases in which the SAIF poorly estimated the shape of the input function based on full arterial sampling.
conclusionAlthough SAIF allows the estimation of the 18F-FDG mice input function with negligible bias and independently from the fasting state, errors in individual mice (as high as 30-50%) cause an important variability. Alternative techniques, such as image-derived input function, might be a better option for mice PET studies.
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.