ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Manual and semi-automated approaches to MIBG myocardial scintigraphy in patients with Parkinson's disease.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning for automated differentiation of parkinson's disease and its mimics using ¹²³I-mIBG scintigraphy: insights from a multicentre real-world cohort (ITA-mIBG study).European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- The neuronal imaging in cardiology: 123I-Biophysical reviews · 2025Review
- Value of multi-parameterEJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Cardiac 123I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) Scintigraphy in Parkinson's Disease: A Comprehensive Review.Brain sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the effects of manual and semi-automatic methods for assessing MIBG semi-quantitative indices in a clinical setting. Materials and methods: We included Results: A moderate agreement in the raters' classification of pathological and non-pathological scores emerged regarding early and late H/M ratio values (κ = 0.45 and 0.69 respectively), applying the manual method, while the early and late H/M ratios obtained with the semi-automatic method reached a good agreement among observers (κ = 0.78). Cohen-Kappa values revealed that the semi-automatic method improved the agreement between expert and inexpert raters: the agreement improved from a minimum of 0.29 (fair, for early H/M) and 0.69 (substantial, in late H/M) with the manual method, to 0.90 (perfect, in early H/M) and 0.87 (perfect, in late H/M) with the semi-automatic method. Conclusion: The use of the semi-automatic method improves the agreement among raters in classifying' H/M ratios as pathological or non-pathological, namely for inexpert readers. These results have important implications for semi-quantitative assessment of
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.