Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41102571›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2025

[

Melissa J Antons, Sandra Kloiber-Langhorst, Heidrun Hirner-Eppeneder, Rebecca Schaefer, Jennifer Stueckl, Giovanna Palumbo, Rosel Oos, Felix L Herr, Simon Lindner, Sibylle Ziegler and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Melissa J AntonsDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany. melissa.antons@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2668-360X
Sandra Kloiber-LanghorstDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Heidrun Hirner-EppenederDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Rebecca SchaeferDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Jennifer StuecklDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Giovanna PalumboDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Rosel OosDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Felix L HerrDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Simon LindnerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Sibylle ZieglerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Matthias BrendelDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Jens RickeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Rudolf A WernerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Maurice M Heimer *Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.
Clemens C Cyran *Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Munich, LMU, Munich, Germany.

Funding

Dr. Kleist Stiftung Kleist18122021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeImmune checkpoint inhibition has shown promising results in malignant melanoma, but not all patients respond equally well, necessitating early, accurate monitoring of immunotherapy response. [ PROCEDURES: Melanoma cells (B16-F10) were injected subcutaneously into C57BL/6 mice (n = 40). Seven days post-inoculation, baseline [

resultsAt FU-1, the therapy group exhibited significantly lower MTV than the control group (p = 0.004). At FU-2, MTV and SUVmax were significantly lower (MTV: p = 0.008; SUVmax: p = 0.0003) compared to controls. Ex vivo analysis revealed significant anti-tumor effects in the therapy group, with higher apoptosis rates (FU-1: p = 0.012; FU-2: p = 0.001), more CD8-positive T-cells (FU-2: p = 0.003) and lower tumor cell proliferation (FU-1: p = 0.012; FU-2: p = 0.012).

conclusionsMulti-time point [

Indexed as

B7-H1 AntigenCTLA-4 AntigenFluorodeoxyglucose F18Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsImmunotherapyMelanoma, ExperimentalPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyAnimalsCell Line, TumorFemaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLB7-H1 AntigenCTLA-4 AntigenFluorodeoxyglucose F18Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors[18F]FDG-PET/CTImmunohistochemistryImmunotherapyMelanoma

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.