↓ Skip to main content

Simplifying [18F]GE-179 PET: are both arterial blood sampling and 90-min acquisitions essential?

Overview of attention for article published in EJNMMI Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Simplifying [18F]GE-179 PET: are both arterial blood sampling and 90-min acquisitions essential?
Published in
EJNMMI Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13550-018-0396-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colm J. McGinnity, Daniela A. Riaño Barros, William Trigg, David J. Brooks, Rainer Hinz, John S. Duncan, Matthias J. Koepp, Alexander Hammers

Abstract

The NMDA receptor radiotracer [18F]GE-179 has been used with 90-min scans and arterial plasma input functions. We explored whether (1) arterial blood sampling is avoidable and (2) shorter scans are feasible. For 20 existing [18F]GE-179 datasets, we generated (1) standardised uptake values (SUVs) over eight intervals; (2) volume of distribution (VT) images using population-based input functions (PBIFs), scaled using one parent plasma sample; and (3) VT images using three shortened datasets, using the original parent plasma input functions (ppIFs). Correlations with the original ppIF-derived 90-min VTs increased for later interval SUVs (maximal ρ = 0.78; 80-90 min). They were strong for PBIF-derived VTs (ρ = 0.90), but between-subject coefficient of variation increased. Correlations were very strong for the 60/70/80-min original ppIF-derived VTs (ρ = 0.97-1.00), which suffered regionally variant negative bias. Where arterial blood sampling is available, reduction of scan duration to 60 min is feasible, but with negative bias. The performance of SUVs was more consistent across participants than PBIF-derived VTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Computer Science 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#8,005,942
of 25,784,004 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Research
#158
of 618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,630
of 342,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Research
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,784,004 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 618 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.