The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Current Methods to Define Metabolic Tumor Volume in Positron Emission Tomography: Which One is Better?
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms
Otsu, N. (1979) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1979.4310076 · Cited by 43,398
Snakes, shapes, and gradient vector flow
Xu, C., & Prince, J. L. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Image Processing · doi:10.1109/83.661186 · Cited by 4,001
(2005) · PubMed · Cited by 612
Larson, S. (1999) · Clinical Positron Imaging · doi:10.1016/s1095-0397(99)00016-3 · Cited by 598
Segmentation of lung lesion volume by adaptive positron emission tomography image thresholding
Erdi, Y. E., Mawlawi, O., Larson, S. M., Imbriaco, M., Yeung, H., Finn, R., & Humm, J. L. (1997) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971215)80:12+<2505::aid-cncr24>3.0.co;2-f · Cited by 480
A gradient-based method for segmenting FDG-PET images: methodology and validation
Geets, X., Lee, J. A., Bol, A., Lonneux, M., & Grégoire, V. (2007) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-006-0363-4 · Cited by 419
Mah, K., Caldwell, C. B., Ung, Y. C., Danjoux, C. E., Balogh, J. M., Ganguli, S. N., Ehrlich, L. E., & Tirona, R. (2002) · International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01824-7 · Cited by 307
Pak, K., Cheon, G. J., Nam, H.-Y., Kim, S.-J., Kang, K. W., Chung, J.-K., Kim, E. E., & Lee, D. S. (2014) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.133801 · Cited by 301
Biehl, K. J., Kong, F., Dehdashti, F., Jin, J., Mutic, S., Naqa, I. E., Siegel, B. A., & Bradley, J. D. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 260
Im, H., Pak, K., Cheon, G. J., Kang, K. W., Kim, S., Kim, I.-J., Chung, J.-K., Kim, E. E., & Lee, D. S. (2014) · European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · doi:10.1007/s00259-014-2903-7 · Cited by 255
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- JH O, Choi WH, Han EJ, et al. The prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for early recurrence in operable breast cancer: comparison with TNM stage. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;47:263–7. · doi:10.1007/s13139-013-0232-6
- Hyun SH, Ahn HK, Ahn MJ, et al. Volume-based assessment with 18F-FDG PET/CT improves outcome prediction for patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:623–8. · doi:10.2214/ajr.14.13847
- Han EJ, Yang YJ, Park JC, Park SY, Choi WH, Kim SH. Prognostic value of early response assessment using 18F-FDG PET/CT in chemotherapy-treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:1187–94. · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000382
- Burger IA, Casanova R, Steiger S, et al. FDG-PET/CT of non-small cell lung carcinoma under neo-adjuvant chemotherapy: background based adaptive volume metrics outperform TLG and MTV in predicting histopathological response. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:849–54. · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.167684
- Spratt DE, Diaz R, McElmurray J, et al. Impact of FDG PET/CT on delineation of the gross tumor volume for radiation planning in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2010;35:237–43. · doi:10.1097/rlu.0b013e3181d18eb0
- Terezakis SA, Hunt MA, Kowalski A, et al. [(1)(8)F]FDG-positron emission tomography coregistration with computed tomography scans for radiation treatment planning of lymphoma and hematologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:615–22. · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.044
- Obara P, Liu H, Wroblewski K, et al. Quantification of metabolic tumor activity and burden in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: is manual adjustment of semiautomatic gradient-based measurements necessary? Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:782–9. · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000317
- Sharif MS, Abbod M, Amira A, Zaidi H. Artificial neural network-based system for PET volume segmentation. Int J Biomed Imaging. 2010;2010:105610. · doi:10.1155/2010/105610
- Hatt M, Cheze Le Rest C, Albarghach N, Pradier O, Visvikis D. PET functional volume delineation: a robustness and repeatability study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:663–72. · doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1688-6
- Huang E, Solaiyappan M, Cho S. Improved stability and performance of 18F-FDG PET automated tumor segmentation using multi-level maximization of inter-class variance method. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:452. · doi:10.2967/jnumed.114.146381
- Mehta G, Chander A, Huang C, Kelly M, Fielding P. Feasibility study of FDG PET/CT-derived primary tumour glycolysis as a prognostic indicator of survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Radiol. 2014;69:268–74. · doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.10.010
- Arslan N, Tuncel M, Kuzhan O, et al. Evaluation of outcome prediction and disease extension by quantitative 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose with positron emission tomography in patients with small cell lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25:406–13. · doi:10.1007/s12149-011-0478-y
- Yoo Ie R, Chung SK, Park HL, et al. Prognostic value of SUVmax and metabolic tumor volume on 18F-FDG PET/CT in early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients without LN metastasis. Biomed Mater Eng. 2014;24:3091–103.
- Lee VH, Chan WW, Lee EY, et al. Prognostic significance of standardized uptake value of lymph nodes on survival for stage III non-small cell lung cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2014;39:355–62. · doi:10.1097/coc.0000000000000070
- Chen GH, Yao ZF, Fan XW, et al. Variation in background intensity affects PET-based gross tumor volume delineation in non-small-cell lung cancer: the need for individualized information. Radiother Oncol. 2013;109:71–6. · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.033
- Yu J, Li X, Xing L, et al. Comparison of tumor volumes as determined by pathologic examination and FDG-PET/CT images of non-small-cell lung cancer: a pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:1468–74. · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.019
Cited by
Effect of evogliptin on the progression of aortic valvular calcification
Song, J.-K., Lee, S., Kim, Y.-J., Kim, H.-K., Ha, J.-W., Choi, E.-Y., Park, S.-W., Park, S.-J., Park, Y.-H., Park, J.-H., et al. (2024) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.06.037 · Cited by 28
Ovarian Cancers with Low CIP2A Tumor Expression Constitute an APR-246–Sensitive Disease Subtype
Cvrljevic, A. N., Butt, U., Huhtinen, K., Grönroos, T. J., Böckelman, C., Lassus, H., Butzow, R., Haglund, C., Kaipio, K., Arsiola, T., et al. (2022) · Molecular Cancer Therapeutics · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.mct-21-0622 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Im, H.-J., Bradshaw, T., Solaiyappan, M., & Cho, S. Y.
- Venue
- Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
- Published
- 2017-09-19
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-15
- ISSN
- 1869-3474 (ISSN-L)
- 1869-3482
- OpenAlex
- W2756233751
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 6.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Funders
- National Research Foundation of Korea (490-20170035)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current Methods to Define Metabolic Tumor Volume in Positron Emission Tomography: Which One is Better? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s13139-017-0493-6
- The paper
- Im, H.-J., Bradshaw, T., Solaiyappan, M., & Cho, S. Y. (2018). Current Methods to Define Metabolic Tumor Volume in Positron Emission Tomography: Which One is Better? Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-017-0493-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
