ArticleJournal of biomedical optics2018
Correcting for targeted and control agent signal differences in paired-agent molecular imaging of cancer cell-surface receptors.
Article in Journal of biomedical optics, 2018. 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.
- Dual-channel pulse-dye densitometry can enable correction of fluorescent targeted and control agent plasma input function differences for quantitative paired-agent molecular imaging: a simulation study.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- Prediction of optimal contrast times post-imaging agent administration to inform personalized fluorescence-guided surgery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2020Article
- Noninvasive quantification of target availability during therapy using paired-agent fluorescence tomography.Theranostics · 2020Article
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
Paired-agent kinetic modeling protocols provide one means of estimating cancer cell-surface receptors with in vivo molecular imaging. The protocols employ the coadministration of a control imaging agent with one or more targeted imaging agent to account for the nonspecific uptake and retention of the targeted agent. These methods require the targeted and control agent data be converted to equivalent units of concentration, typically requiring specialized equipment and calibration, and/or complex algorithms that raise the barrier to adoption. This work evaluates a kinetic model capable of correcting for targeted and control agent signal differences. This approach was compared with an existing simplified paired-agent model (SPAM), and modified SPAM that accounts for signal differences by early time point normalization of targeted and control signals (SPAMPN). The scaling factor model (SPAMSF) outperformed both SPAM and SPAMPN in terms of accuracy and precision when the scale differences between targeted and imaging agent signals (α) were not equal to 1, and it matched the performance of SPAM for α = 1. This model could have wide-reaching implications for quantitative cancer receptor imaging using any imaging modalities, or combinations of imaging modalities, capable of concurrent detection of at least two distinct imaging agents (e.g., SPECT, optical, and PET/MR).
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.