ArticleMedical physics2023
Monte Carlo-derived
Article in Medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison Between Prone SPECT-Based Semi-Quantitative Parameters and MBI-Based Semi-Quantitative Parameters in Patients with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer.Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- Monte Carlo-derivedMedical physics · 2023Article
- Monte Carlo-derivedMedical physics · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMolecular breast imaging (MBI) of PURPOSE: This work outlines the development and performance evaluation of a methodology to absolutely quantify tumor
methodsA validated Monte Carlo application of a commercial MBI system was used to simulate over 7000 unique acquisitions of spherical and ellipsoidal tumors in breast tissue. Tumor absolute activity was calculated following background, scatter, and attenuation corrections of tumor region of interest counts. The methodology was first optimized using a set of high-uptake spherical tumors, and its accuracy and precision was then assessed in a set of spherical tumors with clinical uptake conditions. Finally, the performance of the activity methodology was evaluated under various bias and uncertainty conditions to better characterize the technique under expected clinical measurement conditions.
resultsIn a test set of images with clinically relevant contrast and noise conditions, the mean ± standard deviation relative error in total tumor activity was 0.5% ± 6.5% (n = 2363) under ideal measurement conditions. Allowing for variability in tumor and background contours and in estimated tumor depths, the expected accuracy of the methodology in clinical practice was 0.5% ± 11.1% (n = 2363), with minimal loss of accuracy for ellipsoidal tumors.
conclusionsPlanar MBI photopeak images acquired with standard-of-care protocols can be used to accurately quantify absolute tumor
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.