ArticleHeliyon2024
Evaluating the accuracy of planar gated blood pool processing software using simulated patient studies.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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
Planar gated blood pool (GBP-P) radionuclide imaging is a valuable non-invasive technique for assessing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Serial cardiac imaging can be performed to monitor the potential decline in LVEF among patients undergoing cardiotoxic chemotherapy. Consequently, accurate LVEF determination becomes paramount. While commercial software programs have enhanced the LVEF values' reproducibility, concerns remain regarding their accuracy. This study aimed to generate a database of GBP-P studies with known LVEF values using Monte Carlo simulations and to assess LVEF values' accuracy using four commercial software programs. We utilised anthropomorphic 4D-XCAT models to generate 64 clinically realistic GBP-P studies with Monte Carlo simulations. Four commercial software programs (Alfanuclear, Siemens, General Electric Xeleris, and Mediso Tera-Tomo) were used to process these simulated studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of the LVEF values determined with these software programs and the intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of the LVEF values were assessed. Our study revealed a strong correlation between LVEF values calculated by the software programs and the true LVEF values derived from the 4D-XCAT models. However, all the software programs slightly underestimated LVEF at lower LVEF values. Intra- and inter-observer reliability for LVEF measurements was excellent. Accurate LVEF assessment is crucial for determining the patient's cardiac function before initiating and during chemotherapy treatment. The observed underestimation, particularly at lower LVEF values, emphasises the need for the accurate and reproducible determination of these values to avoid excluding suitable candidates for chemotherapy. The software programs' excellent intra- and inter-observer reliability highlights their potential to reduce subjectivity when using the semi-automatic processing option. This study confirms the accuracy and reliability of these commercial software programs in determining LVEF values from simulated GBP-P studies. Future research should investigate strategies to mitigate the underestimation biases and extend findings to diverse patient populations. Gated blood pool studies, left ventricular ejection fraction, Monte Carlo simulations, 4D-XCAT models.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.