ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Visual analysis of pulmonary blood flow in pulmonary circulation assessment: differences between two variant algorithms for processing dynamic images.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the quantitative assessment of pulmonary blood flow, two different processing algorithms [cross-correlation calculation processing (CCC-pro) and reference frame subtraction processing (RFS-pro)] within dynamic imaging systems have been reported to exhibit high correlations with conventional measurement methods. However, reports still need to evaluate these two processing algorithms regarding the different aspects of pulmonary blood flow. This study aimed to analyze the differences in pulmonary circulation. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate patients with lung cancer who underwent radical surgery, simultaneous dynamic chest radiography (DCR), and pulmonary perfusion scintigraphy (PPS). We assessed the correlation between PPS and two algorithms (CCC-pro and RFS-pro) regarding calculated blood flow ratio (BFR) using Pearson's correlation and linear regression analysis. Additionally, we evaluated consistency using the Bland-Altman analysis. We compared the pulmonary blood flow distributions across six-division lung fields and evaluated each method's blood flow images and histograms of pixel values. Results: From May 2018 to December 2020, we consecutively enrolled 46 patients with lung cancer who met the inclusion criteria (40 male patients, with a mean age of 72.91 years). In these patients, CCC-pro and RFS-pro were correlated (R=0.718, P<0.01); however, CCC-pro was more strongly correlated with PPS than RFS-pro (R=0.859, P<0.01 Conclusions: The CCC-pro algorithm was useful for quantifying BFRs, whereas the RFS-pro algorithm accurately evaluated blood flow distribution in lung fields. Further algorithm development is required to enable versatile pulmonary blood flow analysis.
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.