ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Accuracy and precision analyses of single-time-point dosimetry utilising physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling and non-linear mixed-effects modelling.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 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.
- Virtual-patient nonlinear mixed-effects modelling for data-driven optimisation of single-time-point dosimetry: a proof-of-concept study in [EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Towards practical radiopharmaceutical treatment planning: a review of dosimetry simplification techniques.Theranostics · 2026Review
- Population pharmacokinetic modeling in radiopharmaceutical therapy: a review.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and precision of single-time-point (STP) dosimetry using a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model with non-linear mixed-effects modelling (NLMEM).
methodsBiokinetic data of [
resultsThe ATP fitting was adequate based on the GoF test. STP dosimetry at 48 h after injection provided an acceptable estimation of ADs, yielding the lowest RMSE values for the kidney and tumour, calculated as (7 ± 2)% and (14 ± 4)%, respectively. The ADs in STP dosimetry showed lower precision than in ATP dosimetry. For instance, the ADs precision in ATP and STP dosimetry for kidneys in term median[min, max] were 3[3, 3]% and 6[5, 6]%, respectively. Similar results were found for the tumours where the precision of the ADs in ATP and STP dosimetry were 4[4, 5]% and 9[8, 12] %, respectively.
conclusionSTP dosimetry exhibits acceptable accuracy, although it shows a decrease in precision compared to ATP fitting. Precision information is clinically relevant for developing the optimal strategies for simplified dosimetry protocols.
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.