ArticleEJNMMI research2017
Oxygen-15 labeled CO
Article in EJNMMI research, 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.
- Error analysis of cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism in three-dimensionalAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing MR vascular Fingerprinting with realistic microvascular geometries.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Zero Echo TimeMetabolites · 2021Article
- High-speed quantitative optical imaging of absolute metabolism in the rat cortex.Neurophotonics · 2021Article
- Preserved Cerebral Oxygen Metabolism in Astrocytic Dysfunction: A Combination Study ofBrain sciences · 2019Article
- Preclinical Imaging Biomarkers for Postischaemic Neurovascular Remodelling.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) studies using
resultsThe quantitative values for the whole brain as calculated using FBP were 46.6 ± 12.5 mL/100 mL/min (CBF), 63.7 ± 7.2% (OEF), 5.72 ± 0.34 mL/100 mL/min (CMRO
conclusionsWe evaluated the difference in quantitative values among the reconstruction algorithms using 3D-mode micro-PET. The iterative reconstruction method resulted in significantly higher quantitative values for CBF and CMRO
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.