ArticleWorld journal of nuclear medicine2026
Scalable
Article in World journal of nuclear medicine, 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.
- ExpandingEJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2026Article
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
Objectives: The aim of the study was to develop and assess alternative radiolabeling strategies for SOMAKIT-TOC using gallium-68, with the aim of improving cost-efficiency by increasing the number of examinations per cold kit while maintaining radiochemical quality suitable for clinical use. Materials and Methods: Four protocols were evaluated using triplicate test radiolabelings: (1) the reference method using a single generator and a full kit; (2) dual-generator elution into a full kit; (3) single-generator elution into two sequentially radiolabeled aliquots from one kit; and (4) dual-generator elution into two sequentially radiolabeled aliquots from one kit. Radiochemical purity (RCP) was assessed by radio-thin layer chromatography (rTLC) and radio-high performance liquid chromatography (rHPLC), and radiochemical stability was monitored over 4 hours. Additional quality controls parameters included pH, sterility, and peptide integrity in aliquot solution. Procedures 1 and 3 were further assessed in clinical routine. Results: All protocols yielded radiopharmaceuticals with mean RCP values above 95% by rTLC. Procedure 2 significantly increased the final activity compared with Procedure 1. Procedure 3 enabled doubling the number of examinations per kit while maintaining RCP comparable to the reference method Procedure 4 showed greater variability. Radiolabeled products remained stable over 4 hours as assessed by rTLC, although rHPLC revealed a gradual decrease in purity. In clinical use, Procedure 3 allowed 94 preparations that met diagnostic needs, though 33% had RCP between 80 and 95%. Conclusion: Aliquoting a single cold kit for dual radiolabeling using one generator is feasible and cost-effective, although it is associated with greater RCP variability. Dual-generator strategies yield higher activity but may further compromise RCP. Further optimization is required to improve robustness of off-label protocols while preserving the highest product quality.
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.