ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Quantification of real-time maximal renal perfusion using dynamic renal imaging.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although the peak value of the renal blood perfusion time-activity curve obtained by renal dynamic imaging (RDI) represents the real-time maximum renal blood perfusion (MAX-RP), it is easily affected by the radioactive activity of the injection and is difficult to quantitatively measure. This study proposes a renal blood perfusion peak ratio (RBPPR) model to eliminate injection dose differences and explore its clinical value in quantitatively evaluating MAX-RP. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 151 cases (a total of 205 kidneys) who underwent RDI examination from August 2020 to June 2025. According to the 30% limit of the peak difference rate of renal graph and the normal lower limit value of total glomerular filtration rate (GFR), the participants were divided into a control group and an experimental group (which included: the completely compensated group and the incompletely compensated group). Analysis was conducted of distribution of RBPPR and the differences among groups, its correlation with GFR, and its diagnostic efficacy. Results: RBPPR values were concentrated within each group [standard deviation (SD) ≤1.35%]. RBPPR strongly correlated with each kidney GFR (ekGFR; r=0.778, P<0.001). Across the three groups, both ekGFR (F=94.123, P<0.001) and RBPPR (F=43.336, P<0.001) differed significantly. Compared with the control group (RBPPR 3.67%±0.90%, ekGFR 49.12±9.11 mL/min/1.73 m Conclusions: The RBPPR model can stably and quantitatively evaluate MAX-RP with good accuracy. It provides a simple and reliable new quantitative method for evaluating whether renal function can be completely compensated and the assessment of renal reserve function.
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.