ArticleEJNMMI research2021
Evaluation of [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of [Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Comparison between [EJNMMI research · 2026Article
- Staging of prostate Cancer with ultra-fast PSMA-PET scans enhanced by AI.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- PSMA-PET follow-up to assess response in patients not receiving PSMA therapy: Is there value beyond localization of disease?Theranostics · 2024Article
- Theranostics with somatostatin receptor antagonists in SCLC: Correlation ofTheranostics · 2024Article
- Comparison of Digital versus AnalogDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Lesion Quantification Accuracy of DigitalJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence guided enhancement of digital PET: scans as fast as CT?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Phantom-based acquisition time and image reconstruction parameter optimisation for oncologic FDG PET/CT examinations using a digital system.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Shining Damaged Hearts: Immunotherapy-Related Cardiotoxicity in the Spotlight of Nuclear Cardiology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- New PET technologies - embracing progress and pushing the limits.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Evaluation ofBMC cancer · 2021Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim[
methodsTwenty prostate cancer patients (11 for biochemical recurrence, 5 for initial staging, 4 for metastatic disease) sequentially underwent [
resultsOverall, 98% of regions (91% of affected regions) were correctly classified in the reduced acquisition protocol independent of the image reconstruction algorithm. Two nodal lesions (each ≤ 4 mm) were not identified (leading to downstaging in 1/20 cases). Mean absolute percentage deviation of SUVmax (SUVpeak) was approximately 9% (6%) for each reconstruction algorithm. The mean image noise increased from 13 to 21% (4 iterations) and from 10 to 15% (2 iterations) for PSF + TOF and TOF images.
conclusionsHigh agreement at 3.5-fold reduction of scan time in terms of per-region detection (98% of regions) and image quantification (mean deviation ≤ 10%) was demonstrated; however, small lesions can be missed in about 10% of patients leading to downstaging (T1N0M0 instead of T1N1M0) in 5% of patients. Our results suggest that a reduction of scan time duration or administered [
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.