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.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-efficient unsupervised deep learning deformable SPECT/CT registration framework for voxel-level radionuclide therapy dosimetry: validation using clinicalEJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Toward Reliable Lesion Labeling Standards for AI in Nuclear Medicine.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Instrumentation Digital Twins in PET and SPECT Imaging: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence across oncologic theranostics: evidence for patient stratification, dosimetry, and adaptive radiopharmaceutical therapy.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2026Review
- PET-guided therapy: synergies, strategies, and future directions in external beam radiation therapy and radiopharmaceutical therapy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.