ArticleFrontiers in nuclear medicine2023
A systematic evaluation of five different image-derived input functions for the clinical implementation of
Article in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the use of varying input parameters on resulting bone plasma clearance ( Methods: Raw PET/CT data and blood data were systematically analyzed using five different VOIs for the input functions in the left ventricle and in the thoracic aorta. Standardized VOIs were placed in four thoracic vertebrae and the results pooled and averaged. The basic image-derived input functions (IDIFs) were corrected for partial volume effect and spill-over and modified by substitution of the terminal image exponential with the corresponding plasma-exponentials derived from blood samples. Results: Our original results were reproducible with an inter-observer difference of approximately 6%. The correction factors varied with the VOI volumes from 0.73 ± 0.17 for the largest LV-VOI (48.7 ± 25.3 cm Conclusions: Our results indicated that a VOI with a volume of approximately 20 cm
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.