ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Q.Clear reconstruction shortening the scanning time forEJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Towards a Biologically Defined Diagnosis: Incorporating Pathophysiological Measures Into Parkinson's Disease Clinical Criteria.Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- Article
- Combined with multimodal medical imaging and artificial intelligence for early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- The value of PET/CT in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Parkinson's disease: a dual-tracer study.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of
methodsThirty-two patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) performing
resultsThe overall G900, G720, and G600 image quality scores were 5.0 ± 0.0, 5.0 ± 0.0, and 4.9 ± 0.3 points, respectively, and there was no significant difference among these groups (P > 0.05). A significant decrease in these scores at durations shorter than 600 s was observed when compared to G900 images (P < 0.05). However, all G300 image quality was clinically acceptable (≥ 3 points). As the scan duration reduced, the SUVmean and DAT binding of caudate nucleus and putamen decreased progressively, while there were no statistically significant variations in the SUVmean of the background among the different groups. Moreover, the changes in the lesion DAT binding (ΔDAT-binding) between the full-time reference G900 image and other reconstructed group G720 to G30 images generally increased along with the reduced scan time.
conclusionSufficient image quality and lesion conspicuity could be achieved at 600-s scan duration for
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.