ReviewScanning2022
3D Convolutional Neural Network Framework with Deep Learning for Nuclear Medicine.
Review in Scanning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpretive machine learning predicts short-term mortality risk in elderly sepsis patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review on Artificial Intelligence Evaluating Metastatic Prostatic Cancer and Lymph Nodes on PSMA PET Scans.Cancers · 2024Review
- Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Update of CT-Based Radiomics Applications in the Pre-Surgical Prediction of the Risk of Post-Operative Fistula, Resectability Status and Prognosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Retracted: 3D Convolutional Neural Network Framework with Deep Learning for Nuclear Medicine.Scanning · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-12-13Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · Name of author 1, 4 derived from their Scopus or ORCID profile
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Though artificial intelligence (AI) has been used in nuclear medicine for more than 50 years, more progress has been made in deep learning (DL) and machine learning (ML), which have driven the development of new AI abilities in the field. ANNs are used in both deep learning and machine learning in nuclear medicine. Alternatively, if 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) is used, the inputs may be the actual images that are being analyzed, rather than a set of inputs. In nuclear medicine, artificial intelligence reimagines and reengineers the field's therapeutic and scientific capabilities. Understanding the concepts of 3D CNN and U-Net in the context of nuclear medicine provides for a deeper engagement with clinical and research applications, as well as the ability to troubleshoot problems when they emerge. Business analytics, risk assessment, quality assurance, and basic classifications are all examples of simple ML applications. General nuclear medicine, SPECT, PET, MRI, and CT may benefit from more advanced DL applications for classification, detection, localization, segmentation, quantification, and radiomic feature extraction utilizing 3D CNNs. An ANN may be used to analyze a small dataset at the same time as traditional statistical methods, as well as bigger datasets. Nuclear medicine's clinical and research practices have been largely unaffected by the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). Clinical and research landscapes have been fundamentally altered by the advent of 3D CNN and U-Net applications. Nuclear medicine professionals must now have at least an elementary understanding of AI principles such as neural networks (ANNs) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs).
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.