ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2023
Common carotid segmentation in
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- NaF-PET/CT imaging of atherosclerosis in type 2 diabetes: Associations with sex and history of cardiovascular events in a 2-year follow-up study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- Associations of subclinical microcalcification and inflammation with carotid atheroma development: a dual-tracer PET/CT study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Observational
- Reproducibility ofCurrent cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Common carotid segmentation inClinical physiology and functional imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCarotid atherosclerosis is a major cause of stroke, traditionally diagnosed late. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with
methodsSegmentation in NaF-PET/CT scans of 29 healthy volunteers and 20 angina pectoris patients were compared for segmented volume (Vol) and mean, maximal, and total standardized uptake values (SUVmean, SUVmax, and SUVtotal). SUVmean was the average of SUVmeans within the VOI, SUVmax the highest SUV in all voxels in the VOI, and SUVtotal the SUVmean multiplied by the Vol of the VOI. Intra and Interobserver variability with manual segmentation was examined in 25 randomly selected scans.
resultsBias for Vol, SUVmean, SUVmax, and SUVtotal were 1.33 ± 2.06, -0.01 ± 0.05, 0.09 ± 0.48, and 1.18 ± 1.99 in the left and 1.89 ± 1.5, -0.07 ± 0.12, 0.05 ± 0.47, and 1.61 ± 1.47, respectively, in the right common carotid artery. Manual segmentation lasted typically 20 min versus 1 min with the CNN-based approach. Mean Vol deviation at repeat manual segmentation was 14% and 27% in left and right common carotids.
conclusionsCNN-based segmentation was much faster and provided SUVmean values virtually identical to manually obtained ones, suggesting CNN-based analysis as a promising substitute of slow and cumbersome manual processing.
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.