ArticleEJNMMI research2024
Quantification of [
Article in EJNMMI research, 2024. 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Modality Deep Learning Denoising for Low-Dose μSPECT: Transfer of PET-Trained U‑Net and Diffusion Models.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2026Article
- The use of SPECT-CT in the evaluation of lumbar spine pathology - A Narrative Review.Brain & spine · 2026Review
- Quantification in bone SPECT/CT.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- Quantitative SPECT/CT: Technique and Clinical Applications.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of quantitative SPECT/CT allows more objective assessments of tracer accumulation in SPECT. However standardized uptake values (SUV) still do not play a big role for orthopedic or oncologic questions. With a more reliable normalization, the use of quantitative measures might also be of use for a more objective assessment of lesions. We retrospectively included patients that received a quantitative [
resultsThe strongest correlation between measured activity in L1 and patient parameters was found for BW (r= -0.64, p < 0.001), compared to height (r = -0.28, p = 0.002) and age (r = -0.34, p = 0.001). Furthermore, there was a weak positive correlation between tracer accumulation and bone density (r: 0.35, p < 0.001). Using standard normalization with BW there was a very weak positive correlation between SUV
conclusionUsing an age, bone density and weight-based normalization significantly decreased the interindividual variability of normal uptake on quantitative SPECT/CT compared to the regularly used BW adjusted SUV
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.