ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
An international study of factors affecting variability of dosimetry calculations, part 5: impact of segmentation methods.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence across oncologic theranostics: evidence for patient stratification, dosimetry, and adaptive radiopharmaceutical therapy.Frontiers in nuclear 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividualized radiopharmaceutical therapies guided by patient-specific absorbed dose assessments using imaging have the potential to improve both efficacy and safety. Understanding sources of variability in absorbed dose calculations is critical for standardization. The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Dosimetry Task Force launched the
methodsAnonymized datasets from two patients treated with
resultsVariability in absorbed dose (measured as QCD difference between absorbed doses from participant-generated segmentations and those from reference segmentations) for kidneys was less than 5% in simple cases and 10.6% for more challenging scenarios (i.e. presence of intraparenchymal cysts, cortical defects). Lesion segmentation exhibited higher variability, with absorbed dose variability reaching up to 22.4%.
conclusionsSegmentation significantly contributes to variability in absorbed dose estimates, particularly for lesions and for kidneys with anatomical complexities. Standardizing segmentation protocols and providing training on advanced segmentation methods are essential to reduce variability.
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.