ArticleMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy2023
Value of Dynamic
Article in Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy, 2023. 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subtype-Specific Metabolic Patterns in Staging Breast Cancer: Insights from Conventional and Parametric PET Radiomics.Cancers · 2026Article
- Comparison of changes in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and flourine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography parameters from baseline to post-neoadjuvant therapy in predicting pathological response in breast cancer.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2023
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This prospective study was planned to compare the predictive value of dynamic Methods: Twenty seven patients with LABC [median age: 47, (26-66)] underwent a dynamic Results: Baseline study SUV 30 (p=0.044), SUV 30/2 (p=0.041), SUV 30/5 (p=0.049), SUV 30/10 (p=0.021), SL 30/2 (p=0.029) and SL 30/5 (p=0.027) values were statistically significant different between PCR and non-PCR groups. The percentage changes of 2minVol between PCR and non-PCR groups were statistically significant. For the threshold value of -67.6% change in 2minVol, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 87.2%, 77.8%, 63.6%, 93.3%, and 80.7%, respectively (area under the curve: 0.826, p=0.009). Conclusion: Semiquantitative parameters for dynamic
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.