ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2019
Quantification of [
Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of Focal Lesions in Epilepsy with [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing non-invasive quantitative methods for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Detecting Early Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer's Disease with Brain Synaptic Structural and Functional Evaluation.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Decreased synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A binding in a rodent model of familial Alzheimer's disease detected by [Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Synaptic Vesicle Glycoprotein 2A: Features and Functions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Imaging Synaptic Density: The Next Holy Grail of Neuroscience?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- The pharmacokinetics of [EJNMMI research · 2021Article
- Exploring with [Molecular imaging and biology · 2020Article
- The Rise of Synaptic Density PET Imaging.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Evaluating the In Vivo Specificity of [Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose[ PROCEDURES: Twelve Sprague Dawley male rats, pre-treated with three different doses of levetiracetam were employed to develop the methodology. Three additional kainic acid (KA) treated rats (temporal lobe epilepsy model) were also used to test the procedure. Image analyses focused on: (i) length of the dynamic acquisition (90 versus 60 min); (ii) correlations between Vt and SUV over 20-min consecutive time-frames; (iii) and (iv) evaluation of differences between groups using the Vt and the SUV; and (v) preliminary evaluation of the methodology in the KA epilepsy model.
resultsA large correlation between the Vt issued from 60 to 90-min acquisitions was observed. Further analyses highlighted a large correlation (r > 0.8) between the Vt and the SUV. Equivalent differences between groups were detected for both parameters, especially in the 20-40 and 40-60-min time-frames. The same results were also obtained with the epilepsy model.
conclusionsOur results enable the acquisition setting to be changed from a 90-min dynamic to a 20-min static PET acquisition. According to a better image quality, the 20-40-min time-frame appears optimal. Due to its equivalence to the Vt, the SUV parameter can be considered in order to quantify [
Indexed as
Identifiers
30460626What 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.