ArticlePloS one2017
A quantitative evaluation of multiple biokinetic models using an assembled water phantom: A feasibility 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best-Corrected Visual Acuity Quantitative Prediction for Cataract Patients: AI-Assisted Clinical Diagnostics Facilitation via the Inverse Problem Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Quantitative Prediction of SYNTAX Score for Cardiovascular Artery Disease Patients via the Inverse Problem Algorithm Technique as Artificial Intelligence Assessment in Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the feasibility of quantitatively evaluating multiple biokinetic models and established the validity of the different compartment models using an assembled water phantom. Most commercialized phantoms are made to survey the imaging system since this is essential to increase the diagnostic accuracy for quality assurance. In contrast, few customized phantoms are specifically made to represent multi-compartment biokinetic models. This is because the complicated calculations as defined to solve the biokinetic models and the time-consuming verifications of the obtained solutions are impeded greatly the progress over the past decade. Nevertheless, in this work, five biokinetic models were separately defined by five groups of simultaneous differential equations to obtain the time-dependent radioactive concentration changes inside the water phantom. The water phantom was assembled by seven acrylic boxes in four different sizes, and the boxes were linked to varying combinations of hoses to signify the multiple biokinetic models from the biomedical perspective. The boxes that were connected by hoses were then regarded as a closed water loop with only one infusion and drain. 129.1±24.2 MBq of Tc-99m labeled methylene diphosphonate (MDP) solution was thoroughly infused into the water boxes before gamma scanning; then the water was replaced with de-ionized water to simulate the biological removal rate among the boxes. The water was driven by an automatic infusion pump at 6.7 c.c./min, while the biological half-life of the four different-sized boxes (64, 144, 252, and 612 c.c.) was 4.8, 10.7, 18.8, and 45.5 min, respectively. The five models of derived time-dependent concentrations for the boxes were estimated either by a self-developed program run in MATLAB or by scanning via a gamma camera facility. Either agreement or disagreement between the practical scanning and the theoretical prediction in five models was thoroughly discussed. The derived biokinetic model represented the metabolic mechanism in the human body and helped to solidify the internal circulatory system into concert with numerical verification.
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.