Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36859618›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2023

Evaluation of thresholding methods for the quantification of [

Moon Kim, Robert Seifert, Jana Fragemann, David Kersting, Jacob Murray, Frederic Jonske, Kelsey L Pomykala, Jan Egger, Wolfgang P Fendler, Ken Herrmann and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Fully automated volumetric assessment of tumor burden using artificial intelligence onEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  5. FDG/PSMA discordance in [Frontiers in oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Role ofBMC cancer · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Moon KimInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. Moon-sung.kim@uk-essen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7546-3910
Robert SeifertDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jana FragemannInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
David KerstingDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jacob MurrayInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Frederic JonskeInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Kelsey L PomykalaInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jan EggerInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Wolfgang P FendlerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jens KleesiekInstitute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Essen University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the effect of thresholding algorithms used in computer vision for the quantification of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PET) derived tumor volume (PSMA-TV) in patients with advanced prostate cancer. The results were validated with respect to the prognostication of overall survival in patients with advanced-stage prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 78 patients who underwent [

resultsThe whole-body PSMA-TVs, quantified using different thresholding methods, demonstrate a high positive correlation with the baseline methods. We observed the highest correlation with generalized histogram thresholding (GHT) (Pearson r (r), p value (p): r = 0.977, p < 0.001) and Sauvola thresholding (r = 0.974, p < 0.001) and the lowest correlation with Multiotsu (r = 0.877, p < 0.001) and Yen thresholding methods (r = 0.878, p < 0.001). The median survival time of all patients was 9.87 months (95% CI [9.3 to 10.13]). Stratification by median whole-body PSMA-TV resulted in a median survival time from 11.8 to 13.5 months for the patient group with lower tumor burden and 6.5 to 6.6 months for the patient group with higher tumor burden. The patient group with lower tumor burden had significantly higher probability of survival (p < 0.00625) in eight out of nine thresholding methods (Fig. 2); those methods were SUVmax50 (p = 0.0038), SUV ≥3 (p = 0.0034), Multiotsu (p = 0.0015), Yen (p = 0.0015), Niblack (p = 0.001), Sauvola (p = 0.0001), Otsu (p = 0.0053), and Li thresholding (p = 0.0053).

conclusionThresholding methods commonly used in computer vision are promising tools for the semiautomatic quantification of whole-body PSMA-TV in [

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsProstatic Neoplasms, Castration-ResistantDipeptidesGallium RadioisotopesHeterocyclic Compounds, 1-RingHumansMalePositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesTumor BurdenDipeptidesGallium RadioisotopesHeterocyclic Compounds, 1-RingProstate-Specific AntigenPSMA-11PSMA-617Image biomarkerProstate cancerPSMA PET/CTThresholdingTumor volume

Identifiers

PMID36859618
PMCPMC10199857
OpenAlexW4322758615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.