ArticleNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
Optimizing
Article in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate simplified dosimetry methods for Methods: In 24 patients, we implemented a hybrid protocol combining planar whole-body scans (1, 24, 48 h p.i.) with 24 h SPECT/CT for whole-body and liver dosimetry. Three liver segmentation methods were compared on SPECT/CT: whole-organ manual delineation (reference), 4 mL homogeneous sphere, and 4 mL peak sphere. To estimate time-integrated activity coefficients (TIACs) we modeled biokinetics with monoexponential using: full three-time-point data (reference), reduced combinations (1-2, 1-3, 2-3), Hänscheid single-time-point method, and population-based half-lives. Statistical analysis included linear mixed-effects modeling for segmentation comparisons and Bland-Altman analysis for TIAC method validation. Results: The median absorbed dose was 0.36 mGy/MBq for liver and 0.09 mGy/MBq for whole-body. Among simplified protocols, dual-time-point 24-48 h imaging demonstrated the least bias, with liver absorbed doses showing - 0.02 mGy/MBq (limits of agreement: -0.08 to 0.04 mGy/MBq) and whole-body absorbed doses 0.001 mGy/MBq (limits of agreement: -0.004 to 0.005 mGy/MBq) compared to the full three-time-point reference results. Among single-time-point methods, for both liver and whole-body, the Hänscheid approach applied at 48 h demonstrated superior performance. The 4 mL peak sphere overestimated absorbed doses by 69% versus whole-organ delineation (0.61 vs. 0.36 mGy/MBq, Conclusions: Clinically feasible
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.