ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Optimization of [
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A fully automated AI-based method for tumour detection and quantification on [EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- AI based automatic measurement of split renal function in [EJNMMI reports · 2025Article
- β1600 Q.Clear Digital Reconstruction of [Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- [European journal of hybrid imaging · 2023Article
- PET/CT imaging 2 h after injection of [European journal of hybrid imaging · 2023Article
- [Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2023Article
- Impact of framing scheme optimization and smoking status on binding potential analysis in dynamic PET with [EJNMMI research · 2023Article
- Biokinetics and dosimetry ofClinical physiology and functional imaging · 2022Article
- Assessing the accuracy of [EJNMMI research · 2022Article
- Freely available artificial intelligence for pelvic lymph node metastases in PSMA PET-CT that performs on par with nuclear medicine physicians.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Influences on PET Quantification and Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The effect of Q.Clear reconstruction on quantification and spatial resolution of 18F-FDG PET in simultaneous PET/MR.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Dose-reduced [EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Moving the goalposts while scoring-the dilemma posed by new PET technologies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProstate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radiotracers such as [
resultsThe noise level in the liver, spleen, and muscle was higher for low β values and low acquisition times (written as activity time products (ATs = administered activity × acquisition time)) and was minimized at maximum AT (16 MBq/kg min) and maximum β (1400). There was only a small decrease above AT 10. The median CNR increased slowly with AT from approximately 6 to 12 and was substantially lower at AT 4 and higher at AT 14-16. At AT 4-6, many images were regarded as being of unacceptable quality. For AT 8, β values of 700-900 were considered of acceptable quality.
conclusionsAn AT of 8 (for example as in our study, 4 MB/kg with an acquisition time of 2 min) with a β value of 700 performs well regarding noise level, CNR, and visual image quality assessment.
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.