Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Atherosclerosis Inflammation Imaging with 18F-FDG PET: Carotid, Iliac, and Femoral Uptake Reproducibility, Quantification Methods, and Recommendations

Open access
Rudd, James H.F., Myers, Kelly S., Bansilal, Sameer, Machac, Josef, Pinto, Cathy Anne, Tong, Christopher, Rafique, Ash, Hargeaves, Richard, Farkouh, Michael, Fuster, Valentin, Fayad, Zahi A.·2008·Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Atherosclerosis imaging with 18F-FDG PET is useful for tracking inflammation within plaque and monitoring the response to drug therapy. Short-term reproducibility of this technique in peripheral artery disease has not been assessed, and the optimal method of 18F-FDG quantification is still debated. We imaged 20 patients with vascular disease using 18F-FDG PET twice, 14 d apart, and used these data to assess reproducibility measures and compare 2 methods of 18F-FDG uptake measurement. We also reviewed the literature on quantification methods to determine the optimal measures of arterial 18F-FDG uptake for future studies. METHODS: Twenty patients with vascular disease underwent PET/CT of the iliac, femoral, and carotid arteries 90 min after 18F-FDG administration. In 19 patients, repeat testing was performed at 2 wk. Coregistration and attenuation correction were performed with CT. Vessel 18F-FDG uptake was measured as both the mean and maximum blood-normalized standardized uptake value (SUV), known as the target-to-background ratio (TBR). We assessed interscan, interobserver, and intraobserver agreement. RESULTS: Nineteen patients completed both imaging sessions. The carotid and peripheral arteries all have excellent short-term reproducibility of the 18F-FDG signal, with intraclass correlation coefficients all greater than 0.8 for all measures of reproducibility. Both mean and maximum TBR measurements for quantifying 18F-FDG uptake are equally reproducible. 18F-FDG uptake was significantly higher in the carotid arteries than in both iliac and femoral vessels (P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: We found that both mean and maximum TBR in the carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries were highly reproducible. We suggest the mean TBR be used for tracking systemic arterial therapies, whereas the maximum TBR is optimal for detecting and monitoring local, plaque-based therapy.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2967/jnumed.107.050294

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Rudd, J. H. F., Myers, K. S., Bansilal, S., Machac, J., Pinto, C. A., Tong, C., Rafique, A., Hargeaves, R., Farkouh, M., Fuster, V., & Fayad, Z. A.
Venue
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Published
2008-05-15
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
871-878
ISSN
  • 0161-5505 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-662X
OpenAlex
W2061876167
Cited by
444
References
31
FWCI
36.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Atherosclerosis Inflammation Imaging with 18F-FDG PET: Carotid, Iliac, and Femoral Uptake Reproducibility, Quantification Methods, and Recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2967/jnumed.107.050294
The paper
Rudd, J. H. F., Myers, K. S., Bansilal, S., Machac, J., Pinto, C. A., Tong, C., Rafique, A., Hargeaves, R., Farkouh, M., Fuster, V., & Fayad, Z. A. (2008). Atherosclerosis Inflammation Imaging with 18F-FDG PET: Carotid, Iliac, and Femoral Uptake Reproducibility, Quantification Methods, and Recommendations. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.050294

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.