Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32642865›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2020

Kinfitr - an open-source tool for reproducible PET modelling: validation and evaluation of test-retest reliability.

Jonathan Tjerkaski, Simon Cervenka, Lars Farde, Granville James Matheson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Building an open infrastructure for molecular neuroimaging: Standards and tools from the OpenNeuroPET initiative.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. An In Vivo High-Resolution Human Brain Atlas of Synaptic Density.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. AnFrontiers in neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. BMC gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jonathan TjerkaskiDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden. jonathan.tjerkaski@stud.ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6034-8506
Simon CervenkaDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars FardeDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Granville James MathesonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Centre for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Vetenskapsrådet 523-2014-3467
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, binding is typically estimated by fitting pharmacokinetic models to the series of measurements of radioactivity in the target tissue following intravenous injection of a radioligand. However, there are multiple different models to choose from and numerous analytical decisions that must be made when modelling PET data. Therefore, it is important that analysis tools be adapted to the specific circumstances, and that analyses be documented in a transparent manner. Kinfitr, written in the open-source programming language R, is a tool developed for flexible and reproducible kinetic modelling of PET data, i.e. performing all steps using code which can be publicly shared in analysis notebooks. In this study, we compared outcomes obtained using kinfitr with those obtained using PMOD: a widely used commercial tool.

resultsUsing previously collected test-retest data obtained with four different radioligands, a total of six different kinetic models were fitted to time-activity curves derived from different brain regions. We observed good correspondence between the two kinetic modelling tools both for binding estimates and for microparameters. Likewise, no substantial differences were observed in the test-retest reliability estimates between the two tools.

conclusionsIn summary, we showed excellent agreement between the open-source R package kinfitr, and the widely used commercial application PMOD. We, therefore, conclude that kinfitr is a valid and reliable tool for kinetic modelling of PET data.

Indexed as

Kinetic modellingPositron emission tomographyRReproducible research

Identifiers

PMID32642865
PMCPMC7343683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.