Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40639909›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine2025

Recommendations for Standardizing Nuclear Medicine Terminology and Data in the Era of Theranostics and Artificial Intelligence.

Tyler J Bradshaw, Julia Brosch-Lenz, Carlos Uribe, Nicolas Karakatsanis, Richard Bruce, Lidia Strigari, Abhinav Jha, Joyita Dutta, Jazmin Schwartz, Georges El Fakhri and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Toward Reliable Lesion Labeling Standards for AI in Nuclear Medicine.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

13 authors.

Tyler J BradshawDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; tbradshaw@wisc.edu.
Julia Brosch-LenzInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland.
Carlos UribeMolecular Imaging and Therapy, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Nicolas KarakatsanisDepartment of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Richard BruceDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Lidia StrigariDepartment of Medical Physics, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Abhinav JhaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Joyita DuttaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Jazmin SchwartzDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Georges El FakhriDepartments of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering and Bioinformatics and Data Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Atlas AvvalMashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Arman RahmimMolecular Imaging and Therapy, BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Babak SabouryInstitute of Nuclear Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Multimodal Learning for Contextually-Aware Longitudinal PET/CT image analysisR01EB033782 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Tyler J Bradshaw · 2024 to 2026
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB033782
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a pressing need for improved standardization of terminology and data in nuclear medicine. The field is experiencing unprecedented growth, driven by advances in radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) and the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI). However, there are challenges that threaten to frustrate this continued progress. For instance, despite the successes of RPT, high-quality evidence on how to best personalize RPT and take full advantage of its theranostics properties is still lacking. To obtain this evidence, large, structured datasets are needed to associate different RPT strategies with patient outcomes. Large datasets are also needed for the development of AI algorithms, especially as new foundation models demand increasingly large training datasets. Both of these obstacles could be overcome by multiinstitutional data sharing. However, inconsistencies in terminology and data collection make effective data pooling difficult. This article, produced by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging AI-Dosimetry Working Group, discusses the need for standardization in nuclear medicine terminology and data. We advocate for the adoption of standardized data and metadata frameworks based on controlled biomedical ontologies to better harmonize the collection of nuclear medicine data. We provide recommendations for the field that, if followed, would facilitate multiinstitutional data sharing and allow for the collection of large datasets. We describe a use case demonstrating how standardized vocabularies and data collection can enhance efforts to associate theranostics target expression data with patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNuclear MedicineTerminology as TopicHumansReference Standardsartificial intelligencedata standardizationimage processingterminology standardizationtheranostics

Identifiers

PMID40639909
PMCPMC12410288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.