ArticleJournal of medical physics
[
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To characterize correlations (ρ) between imaging and patient-related parameters in [ Materials and Methods: Two retrospective PET-CT cohorts from a single-center database were analyzed, comprising patients imaged for suspected prostate cancer with either tracer. Spearman rank intra-tracer correlation coefficients were calculated between weight, body surface area (BSA), lean body mass (LBM), lesion maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) (T), liver mean SUV (SUVmean) (B), tumor-to-background ratio (T/B), and metabolic tumor volume. Inter-tracer comparisons were performed using Fisher-transformed paired correlation coefficients, with Bonferroni correction to control type I error. Results: Mann-Whitney testing demonstrated no significant differences in weight ( Conclusion: Correlation structures for the two tracers were broadly comparable across most imaging and demographic variables. Observed differences in liver SUVmean correlations with body habitus parameters were mitigated by BSA or LBM normalization. These findings support clinical tracer interchangeability. However, full characterization is recommended when alternative SUV normalizations are applied or when liver SUVmean is used as background reference tissue in tumor-to-background trial selection criteria.
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.