ArticleFrontiers in nuclear medicine2025
Validating image-derived input functions of dynamic
Article in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parametric imaging of dynamic long-axial-field-of-view PET scans: Technical challenges, statistical insights and clinical applications.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Review
- Parametric analysis of dynamic long axial field-of-viewEJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Evaluating image-derived input functions for cerebral [Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim/background: Dynamic PET imaging requires an input function typically obtained through blood sampling. Image-derived input functions (IDIFs) of the ascending aorta (AA), aortic arch, descending aorta (DA), or left ventricle (LV) offer non-invasive alternatives, especially with long-axial field-of-view (LAFOV) PET/CT systems enabling whole-body dynamic Methods: Eleven oncology patients who underwent 70-min dynamic Results: IDIF accuracy relative to venous blood samples improved over time, with a median percentage bias <10% after 25 min pi. At 60 min pi, the aortic arch showed the smallest bias (median -1.1%, IQR 5.9%), followed by the AA (2.5%, IQR 7.0%), DA (5.1%, IQR 8.6%), and LV (7.4%, IQR 7.6%). Conclusion: The high precision of aorta-derived IDIFs suggests that IDIFs are a reliable alternative to manual blood sampling for dynamic
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.