ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026
Myocardial flow reserve estimation from standardized uptake values of
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the feasibility of estimating myocardial flow reserve (MFR) from static standardized uptake values (SUVs) derived using stress and rest
methodsWe retrospectively included 121 consecutive patients who underwent
resultsThe RMSE of the predicted MFR calculated using the linear regression model was 0.39. Using an optimal cut-off value of 1.79 for the predicted MFR, the model achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.83-0.95), with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 88%. The proposed simplified SUV-based approach exhibited clinically acceptable error for MFR estimation and could effectively identify patients with an impaired MFR.
conclusionThis method may facilitate quantitative MFR assessment in clinical settings where dynamic PET protocols or dedicated software are not available, thereby broadening access to physiological evaluation of myocardial perfusion.
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.