Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39688086›Full record

ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2025

High concordance of PET-CT treatment response evaluation according to PERCIST 1.0 when comparing images reconstructed with OSEM vs. BSREM.

Tilda Skoglund, David Minarik, Lars Edenbrandt, Elin Trägårdh

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. coPERCIST: AI-assisted PET-CT response assessment.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tilda SkoglundDepartment of Translational Medicine, Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
David MinarikDepartment of Translational Medicine, Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-8129-3228
Lars EdenbrandtDepartment of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0263-8820
Elin TrägårdhDepartment of Translational Medicine, Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7116-303X

Funding

Allmänna Sjukhusets i Malmö Stiftelse för Bekämpande av CancerCancerfonden #23 2720Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositron emission tomography (PET) response criteria in solid tumours (PERCIST 1.0) is a systematic assessment of therapy response with fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([

methodsThe highest peak standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SUL

resultsThe mean standard deviation (SD) of SUL

conclusionPERCIST 1.0 serves as a robust response evaluation criterion and is only marginally dependent on the reconstruction used.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18MelanomaPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyPredictive Value of TestsRadiopharmaceuticalsAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals[18F]FDGPERCISTPET‐CTreconstructionstreatment classification

Identifiers

PMID39688086
PMCPMC11650543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.