ArticleEJNMMI physics2022
Aortic valve imaging using
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging small dynamic lesions using positron emission tomography and computed tomography: anEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Aortic Valve Calcium Score: Applications in Clinical Practice and Scientific Research-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Advanced Cardiac Imaging in the Assessment of Aortic Stenosis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Anatomical validation of automatic respiratory motion correction for coronary 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography by expert measurements from four-dimensional computed tomography.Medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent MATERIALS AND
methodsFourteen patients with aortic stenosis underwent two repeat 30-min PET aortic valve scans within (29 ± 24) days. We considered three different image reconstruction protocols; an end-diastolic reconstruction protocol (standard) utilizing 25% of the acquired data, an ECG-gated (four ECG gates) reconstruction (ECG-MC), and a triple motion-corrected (3 × MC) dataset which corrects for both cardiorespiratory and patient motion. All datasets were compared to aortic valve calcification scores (AVCS), using the Agatston method, obtained from CT scans using correlation plots. We report SUV
resultsCompared to standard and ECG-MC reconstructions, increases in both SUV
conclusion3 × MC improves the correlation between the AVCS and SUV
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.