An account of data entry inconsistencies and their impact on positron emission tomography quantification

about

An account of data entry inconsistencies and their impact on positron emission tomography quantification

Item

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q58739579

description

im September 2018 veröffentlichter wissenschaftlicher Artikel

@de

scientific article published on 01 September 2018

@en

wetenschappelijk artikel

@nl

наукова стаття, опублікована у вересні 2018

@uk

name

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@en

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@nl

type

Item

label

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@en

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@nl

prefLabel

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@en

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@nl

P1476

An account of data entry incon ...... sion tomography quantification

@en

P2093

Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Tram Nguyen

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

Standards for PET image acquisition and quantitative data analysis.

PET/CT Assessment of Response to Therapy: Tumor Change Measurement, Truth Data, and Error.

Instrumentation factors affecting variance and bias of quantifying tracer uptake with PET/CT.

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography standardized uptake values in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy

Retrospective quality control review of FDG scans in the imaging sub-study of PALETTE EORTC 62072/VEG110727: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial

Quantifying and reducing the effect of calibration error on variability of PET/CT standardized uptake value measurements.

Noise considerations for PET quantification using maximum and peak standardized uptake value.

Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients.

Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials.

Variance of SUVs for FDG-PET/CT is greater in clinical practice than under ideal study settings

P304

e12312

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P356

10.1097/MD.0000000000012312

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P407

English

P433

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P50

Christina Baun

P577

2018-09-01T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P698

30212971

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P932

6156030

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string