ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Dynamic frame-by-frame motion correction for
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01347710 (A Phase 3, Open Label, Multicenter Study for the Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion Using Positron Emission Tomography), which is not on this 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.
A Phase 3, Open Label, Multicenter Study for the Assessment of Myocardial Perfusion Using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Imaging of Flurpiridaz F18 Injection in Patients With Suspected or Known Coronary Artery Disease (CAD)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Precise quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) and flow reserve (MFR) in Methods: The method employs a 3D ResNet based architecture that takes 3D PET volumes and outputs motion vectors. It was validated using 5-fold cross-validation on data from 32 sites of a Phase III clinical trial (NCT01347710). Manual corrections from two experienced operators served as ground truth, and data augmentation using simulated vectors enhanced training robustness. The study compared the DL approach to both manual and standard non-AI automatic MC methods, assessing agreement and diagnostic accuracy using minimal segmental MBF and MFR. Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) for significant CAD were comparable between DL-MC MBF, manual-MC MBF from Operators (AUC=0.897, 0.892 and 0.889, respectively; p>0.05), standard non-AI automatic MC (AUC=0.877; p>0.05) and significantly higher than No-MC (AUC=0.835; p<0.05). Similar findings were observed with MFR. The 95% confidence limits for agreement with the operator were ±0.49ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MFR and ±0.24ml/g/min (mean difference = 0.00) for MBF. Conclusion: DL-MC is significantly faster but diagnostically comparable to manual-MC. The quantitative results obtained with DL-MC for MBF and MFR are in excellent agreement with those manually corrected by experienced operators compared to standard non-AI automatic MC in patients undergoing
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.