ArticleCurrent cardiovascular imaging reports2018
New Trends in Quantitative Nuclear Cardiology Methods.
Article in Current cardiovascular imaging reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the physical topology of the tumor immune microenvironment: macroscopic image fractals as surrogate markers for immune exclusion phenotype and treatment resistance in colorectal cancer liver metastases.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Observational
- Medicinal (Radio) Chemistry: Building Radiopharmaceuticals for the Future.Current medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Preparing for the Artificial Intelligence Revolution in Nuclear Cardiology.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
- Multimodality Imaging in Ischemic Chronic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of imaging · 2022Review
- Validation and Clinical Applicability of Whole-Volume Automated Segmentation of Optical Coherence Tomography in Retinal Disease Using Deep Learning.JAMA ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of stress-only myocardial perfusion SPECT improved by deep learning.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Is SPECT LVEF assessment more accurate than CT at higher heart rates? More evidence for complementary information in multimodality imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
- Behind Traditional Semi-quantitative Scores of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: An Eye on Niche Parameters.European cardiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe use of quantitative analysis in single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) has become an integral part of current clinical practice and plays a crucial role in the detection and risk stratification of coronary artery disease. Emerging technologies, new protocols, and new quantification methods have had a significant impact on the diagnostic performance and prognostic value of nuclear cardiology imaging, while reducing the need for clinician oversight. In this review, we aim to describe recent advances in automation and quantitative analysis in nuclear cardiology. RECENT
findingsRecent publications have shown that fully automatic processing is feasible, limiting human input to specific cases where aberrancies are detected by the quality control software. Furthermore, there is evidence indicating that fully quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion imaging is feasible and can achieve at least similar diagnostic accuracy as visual interpretation by an expert clinician. In addition, the use of fully automated quantification in combination with machine learning algorithms can provide incremental diagnostic and prognostic value over the traditional method of expert visual interpretation. SUMMARY: Emerging technologies in nuclear cardiology focus on automation and the use of artificial intelligence as part of the interpretation process. This review highlights the benefits and limitations of these applications, and outlines future directions in the field.
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.