ライフサイエンスコーパス: standardized uptake value

1 standardized uptake values ( SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value ).

2 and total lesion activity (TLA = MATV x mean standardized uptake value).

3 milar to quantitative PET (i.e., kBq cm(-3), standardized uptake value).

4 mm or greater on CT and expressed as maximum standardized uptake value.

5 ntified within upper airway tissues with the standardized uptake value.

6 e thoracic aortic wall and was reported as a standardized uptake value.

7 ication of intratumor heterogeneity and peak standardized uptake value.

8 ke of the abdominal aorta was measured using standardized uptake values.

9 tive analysis was performed by comparing the standardized uptake values.

10 n saline controls 24 h after treatment (mean standardized uptake value, 0.44 +/- 0.08 vs. 0.56 +/- 0.

11 t LN activity (mean [SD] maximum axillary LN standardized uptake value, 1.53 [0.56]), the elite contr

12 rms of contrast (-11.3%, P = 0.002), maximum standardized uptake value (-10.7%, P = 0.003), and slope

13 levels of LN (mean [SD] maximum axillary LN standardized uptake value, 2.12 [0.87] and 2.32 [1.79],

14 ertrophy than primary tumors (median maximum standardized uptake value, 2.2 vs. 3.5; P = 0.004).

15 acer uptake in TE-11 than TT tumors (maximum standardized uptake value, 24 h: 0.67 +/- 0.09 vs. 0.36

16 owed higher-than-normal physiologic avidity (standardized uptake value, 4.3) in the proximal stomach

17 as defined as the sum of the volumes above a standardized uptake value 50% of the SUVmax within the p

18 hest activity (mean [SD] maximum axillary LN standardized uptake value, 8.82 [3.08]).

19 e within the infrarenal aorta to assess mean standardized uptake value and attenuation (in Hounsfield

20 Variations in tumor standardized uptake value and normal tissue distribution

21 test), which compared favorably with maximum standardized uptake value and tumor volume (hazard ratio

22 , which was higher than those of the maximum standardized uptake value and tumor volume, with concord

23 The maximum standardized uptake value and tumor-to-liver uptake rati

24 In the entire group, tumor maximum standardized uptake value and tumor-to-muscle ratio corr

25 were analyzed on the basis of the (18)F-FDG standardized uptake value and volumetric CT histogram an

26 High standardized uptake values and slow washout kinetics wer

27 s measured using normalized 60- to 90-minute standardized uptake values and volume of distribution ra

28 tissue ratios based on both maximum and mean standardized uptake values) and visually (4-point scale)

29 Tumor size, PET standardized uptake value, and IMI tumor-to-background r

30 ptake, generally in tumors with high initial standardized uptake values, and showed a minor tumor gro

31 rs (tumor volume, diameter, maximum and mean standardized uptake values, and total lesion glycolysis

32 titative parameters maximal, mean, and total standardized uptake value as ratio to background and bio

33 Maximum standardized uptake value at cycle 1 day 8 correlated wi

34 l brain, with significant differences in the standardized uptake values at late times among (18)F-FDG

35 h may not include the voxel with highest SUV standardized uptake value corrected for local background

36 static parameters (maximal and mean tumoral standardized uptake value corrected for mean background

37 h we also examined whether change in maximum standardized uptake values corrected for lean body mass

38 zed that early measurements of tumor maximum standardized uptake values corrected for lean body mass

39 Of note, lung mean standardized uptake values correlated with bleomycin dos

40 ting percent change in FDG uptake (change in standardized uptake value [DeltaSUV]).

41 eg, the change of the difference of maximum standardized uptake value (DeltaSUVmax), is for patients

42 SULmax (maximum standardized uptake value derived for lean body) and SUL

43 r regions of interest in maximum and mean ED standardized uptake value (ED SUVmax and ED SUVmean, res

44 For the in vivo study, the mean liver standardized uptake value error was -5.9% with the tradi

45 RAC and MLAA-GMM methods resulted in average standardized uptake value errors of -5.4% and -3.5% in t

46 ence correlated with higher lesional maximum standardized uptake values: for PFS, P < .0001 to P = .0

47 A correlation between maximum standardized uptake value from PET and counting rate per

48 to contralateral [11C]PBR28 and [11C]DPA-713 standardized uptake values from temporal regions.

49 e and ERalpha-negative lesions was a maximum standardized uptake value greater than 1.8, which provid

50 these contours to give the tumor volume with standardized uptake value >/=2.5.

51 FDHT uptake (lesion with the highest maximum standardized uptake value) had significantly shorter ove

52 However, the (18)F-FMZ standardized uptake value images were falsely localizing

53 The mean standardized uptake value in grafts (SUV-G) and mediasti

54 to metastatic sites (12- and 8.5-fold-lower standardized uptake value in the heart and kidney, respe

55 distribution studies as well as higher tumor standardized uptake values in PET/CT imaging than (68)Ga

56 We compared standardized uptake values in the clinically adjudicated

57 Background Primary tumor maximum standardized uptake value is a prognostic marker for non

58 High standardized uptake value, large metabolic volumes, and

59 The mean increase in maximum standardized uptake value, lesion-to-background ratio (c

60 esion): mG1, tumor-to-liver ratio of maximum standardized uptake value </= 1.0; mG2, 1.0-2.3; mG3, >2

61 ugmented in atherosclerotic animals, with an standardized uptake value mean of 0.43+/-0.02 at inducti

62 nidazole uptake increased with time on diet (standardized uptake value mean, 0.10+/-0.01 in nonathero

63 tation method was used to assess the maximum standardized uptake value, mean standardized uptake valu

64 These results were confirmed with a standardized uptake value measured at 20 and 40 min.

65 the maximum standardized uptake value, mean standardized uptake value, metabolic tumor volume (MTV),

66 ure features reflecting image heterogeneity, standardized uptake values, metabolic tumor volume, and

67 hy/computed tomography using the 41% maximum standardized uptake value method; the optimal TMTV cutof

68 8)F-FDG PET/CT and the difference in maximum standardized uptake value (n = 11; R(2) = 0.67; P = 0.00

69 Standardized uptake values normalized to whole brain wer

70 se uptake (inflammatory signal), measured as standardized uptake value (odds ratio [95% confidence in

71 ve correlation was found between the maximal standardized uptake value of (18)F-FDG and semiquantitat

72 ally significant correlation between maximal standardized uptake value of (18)F-FDG and semiquantitat

73 luorodeoxyglucose uptake with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.2-14.6 (mean, 6.6 +/- 4.2

74 fluorodeoxyglucose-avid IMLN, with a median standardized uptake value of 2.30 (range, 1.20-6.10).

75 EG3-E[c{RGDyk}]2) uptake with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.4-9.4 (mean, 5.6 +/- 2.8)

76 G3-E[c{RGDyk}]2) uptake, with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.4-9.7 (mean, 5.0 +/- 2.3)

77 luorodeoxyglucose uptake with SUVmax maximum standardized uptake value of 2.8-18.6 (mean, 10.4 +/- 7.

78 e ratio (mcSUVr) is calculated from the mean standardized uptake value of 6 cortical regions normaliz

79 CI, 92.4% to 96.8%) with an average maximum standardized uptake value of 65.4 +/- 47 (range, 6.9 to

80 these mouse models, and a ratio between the standardized uptake value of the primary tumor and a con

81 tatistically significant mean errors in mean standardized uptake values of -14% +/- 5% and -23% +/- 6

82 h (64)Cu-L19K-DNP and (64)Cu-L19K, with mean standardized uptake values of 0.62 +/- 0.05, 0.18 +/- 0.

83 es to assess scanner calibration and maximum standardized uptake values of all 6 lesions to review qu

84 ng open-source AMIDE software to compare the standardized uptake values of tumor with those of surrou

85 hold of mean standardized uptake value ( SUV standardized uptake value ) of a sphere of 12-mm diamete

86 22 patients, with a median SUV(max) (maximum standardized uptake value) of 6.9 (range, 2.3-46.9).

87 Changes in total activity (total standardized uptake value) on (18)F-NaF PET/CT from mont

88 xpression (n = 15 nonhepatic tumors; maximum standardized uptake value, P = 0.0002; tumor-to-liver up

89 umors of variable sizes (8.5-128 mm(3)) with standardized uptake values ranging from 2.1 to 9.3.

90 Subsequently, a single mean cortical standardized uptake value ratio (mcSUVr) is calculated f

91 Cognitive scores, mean fludeoxyglucose F 18 standardized uptake value ratio (participants from the A

92 Regional FDG standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and gray matter v

93 oid burden was measured as the mean cortical standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) at baseline.

94 timate of cortical tau burden as measured by standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) from baseline to

95 ce of beta-amyloidosis, defined as a PiB PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) greater than 1.5,

96 r reference, 80-100-min 18F-flortaucipir PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) images were creat

97 T-measured global amyloid-beta load by using standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) in 267 older cogn

98 inear regression of voxel intensities on the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) in a neocortical

99 Standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of [18F]-AV-1451

100 The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) positivity thresh

101 density data as a truth standard to derive a standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) threshold, we ass

102 Standardized uptake value ratio (SUVr) was calculated fr

103 Standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) was determined at

104 sessment was performed using global cortical standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) with the whole ce

105 ducation, APOE genotype, amyloid and tau PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR), cognitive perfor

106 rithms were used to compare the regional tau standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR, the ratio of radi

107 iously established abnormality cut points of standardized uptake value ratio 1.48 (A) and 1.33 (T).

108 yloid-beta deposition (Pittsburgh compound B-standardized uptake value ratio 2.472 versus 1.928; P =

109 We measured mean tracer uptake (standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR]) in 4 regions of

110 f metabolic activity in the residual lesion (standardized uptake value ratio [SUVr]) was calculated a

111 pendent on the reference region used for the standardized uptake value ratio calculation and which wa

112 ing target ROIs were evaluated by use of the standardized uptake value ratio for (18)F-florbetapir PE

113 Standardized uptake value ratio images were calculated f

114 Standardized uptake value ratio images were visually sco

115 Amyloid binding was quantified using the standardized uptake value ratio in one cortical composit

116 d the [11C]PiB distribution volume ratio and standardized uptake value ratio in PET images.

117 At 150 min after injection, the cortical standardized uptake value ratio increased by approximate

118 tissue model, Logan graphical analysis, and standardized uptake value ratio methods, respectively.

119 Elevated amyloid level was defined as a standardized uptake value ratio of greater than 1.5 on P

120 Pittsburgh compound B standardized uptake value ratio results were scaled usin

121 The distribution volume ratio and the standardized uptake value ratio were measured in cortica

122 SUVr (standardized uptake value ratio) was calculated for a st

123 y reference, 18F-T807 data were expressed as standardized uptake value ratio, and 11C-PiB were given

124 -ABC577 binding was quantified by use of the standardized uptake value ratio, which was calculated fo

125 imated from non-invasive tracer kinetics and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVR) measured at diff

126 Target-to-reference tissue standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) at 70-90 min we

127 Regional standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) for tau positro

128 t placement was identical on both scans, and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) using the cereb

129 Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were calculated

130 Standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) were extracted

131 on between longitudinal Abeta1-42 levels and standardized uptake value ratios during follow-up.

132 ifically, we derived grey matter density and standardized uptake value ratios for both positron emiss

133 Standardized uptake value ratios for muscles (infected/i

134 ative scans; and third, to correlate derived standardized uptake value ratios to neuropathologic meas

135 (18) F-flortaucipir standardized uptake value ratios were calculated (t = 80

136 Standardized uptake value ratios were generated with sub

137 egions, were replicated using comparisons of standardized uptake value ratios, and could not be accou

138 reference tissue modeling 2 (SRTM2) DVR, and standardized uptake value ratios.

139 The FTP-PET measures were computed as standardized uptake value ratios.

140 e was assessed semiquantitatively by maximum standardized uptake value, ratios of tumor to normal tis

141 s, potentially leading to highly reduced PET standardized uptake values, rendering lesions indistingu

142 (18)F-FDG PET tumor uptake (maximum standardized uptake value, scan 2 - scan 1) correlated w

143 (11)C-donepezil volumes of distribution and standardized uptake values, suggesting that arterial blo

144 or volume derived with 50% threshold of mean standardized uptake value ( SUV standardized uptake valu

145 cizumab uptake was quantified as the maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max).

146 otal lesion glycolysis, and maximum and peak standardized uptake value (SUV(max) and SUV(peak), respe

147 sease was quantified on the basis of maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)), MATV, and total le

148 cale and by measuring the myocardial maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(max)).

149 The mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV(mean) and SUV(max), respe

150 ating characteristics analysis, an (18)F-FDG standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.5 was most accurate t

151 Maximum, mean, and peak standardized uptake value (SUV) analysis was performed,

152 correlation coefficients (r(s)) between the standardized uptake value (SUV) and ADC data corrected f

153 g potential (BPND) images were compared with standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV ratio images.

154 acturer's PSF-based reconstruction using the standardized uptake value (SUV) and the metabolic volume

155 However, it is not known whether standardized uptake value (SUV) can detect differences i

156 as well as to investigate the sufficiency of standardized uptake value (SUV) for estimation of SSTR e

157 s with visual inspection, line profiles, and standardized uptake value (SUV) in focally avid lesions.

158 However, additional miscalculation of standardized uptake value (SUV) in PET images can be cau

159 Visual and semiquantitative standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements were perfor

160 Standardized uptake value (SUV) measures were also evalu

161 In general, global standardized uptake value (SUV) metrics decreased while

162 We characterized the reproducibility of standardized uptake value (SUV) metrics to assess respon

163 Standardized uptake value (SUV) normalized by lean body

164 e in the brain occurred quickly, with a peak standardized uptake value (SUV) of 1.7.

165 A standardized uptake value (SUV) of 2.5 was taken as a cu

166 s were quantitatively evaluated by using the standardized uptake value (SUV) of the normalized root m

167 s, including visual PET scale (+/-), maximal standardized uptake value (SUV) of the tumor (T SUV max)

168 nt diffusion coefficients (ADCs) and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) of up to six target lesi

169 Change in hotspot standardized uptake value (SUV) predicted loss of graft

170 r bone lesions and to analyze differences in standardized uptake value (SUV) quantification between P

171 reference regions to track 24-mo florbetapir standardized uptake value (SUV) ratio (SUVR) changes; to

172 Evaluation of imaging was done with standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios: SUV maximum of t

173 argets against blood-pool or liver activity; standardized uptake value (SUV) semiquantitation has art

174 -automatically delineated using a customized standardized uptake value (SUV) threshold-based approach

175 The blood standardized uptake value (SUV) was determined by manual

176 The software provided the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) within the lesion and at

177 ages randomly concerning quality, detection, standardized uptake value (SUV), and size of pulmonary n

178 mance of several simplified methods, such as standardized uptake value (SUV), was assessed.

179 on, based on fixed or adaptive thresholds of standardized uptake value (SUV).

180 ed semiquantitatively in the form of maximum standardized uptake values (SUV(max)) and uptake volumes

181 Arterial uptake was quantified as standardized uptake values (SUV(Max)).

182 FDG activity was quantified as standardized uptake values (SUV) and both the overall me

183 Standardized uptake values (SUV) and TBR were generated

184 Standardized uptake values (SUV) in tumors were suggeste

185 to monitor change over time using the 2-FDG standardized uptake values (SUV) metric.

186 Time-activity curves were obtained, and standardized uptake values (SUV) were calculated for maj

187 ake was shown on visit 1 (myocardial maximum standardized uptake value [SUV(max)] > 3.6) in 17 of 22

188 red visually and semiquantitatively (maximum standardized uptake value [SUV(max)], mean SUV [SUV(mean

189 sence or absence of (18)F-FDG tracer uptake (standardized uptake value [SUV] > 2) in cervical-supracl

190 Simplified measures (standardized uptake value [SUV] and tumor-to-blood ratio

191 aclavicular lymphadenopathy (6 x 5 cm with a standardized uptake value [SUV] of 14), a 1.3-cm subcuta

192 ) and several simplified methods (Patlak and standardized uptake value [SUV]).

193 post-AAA induction, the radiotracer uptake (standardized uptake value [SUV]=0.91+/-0.25) was approxi

194 ptake was observed with (64)Cu-ATSM (maximum standardized uptake values [SUV(max)], 1.26 +/- 0.13) an

195 ed with these 2 needles and to calculate the standardized uptake value, SUVARG.

196 t test was performed to compare the maximum standardized uptake values ( SUVmax maximum standardized

197 tic spread, and determining maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectiv

198 T-derived parameters, including maximum/mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean, respectiv

199 A maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) >= 5 typically indica

200 Global imaging metrics, including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and total functional

201 ke in FDG-positive HCC was done with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and tumor to nontumor

202 tumors that express high normalized maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) are associated with a

203 The median and range of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) at baseline on (18)F-

204 8) assessed the relationship between maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) at baseline on positr

205 to calculate the mean difference in maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) between abnormal para

206 18)F-FDG PET-positive lesions with a maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) greater than 4.5 or a

207 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in malignant lesions

208 ratio [SUVr]) was calculated as the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) in the tumor relative

209 In addition to maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measurements, a globa

210 t each individual sampling site, the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of (68)Ga-DOTATATE wa

211 parameters were generated, including maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the hottest lesion

212 ke of tumor tissue was quantified by maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the hottest malign

213 The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the mass lesion wa

214 ut a semiquantitative approach using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) reduction between bas

215 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) reductions from basel

216 tile range, IQR, 2.0-3.6) and median maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was 7.2 (IQR 3.7-15.5

217 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) was associated with p

218 tative PET, 8 quantitative PET using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and 7 quantitative P

219 We measured the highest maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), defined as the lymph

220 CT largest diameter, CT volume, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), mean SUV (SUVmean),

221 Metabolic activity defined by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumor volu

222 HAC and RS patients had higher maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), more frequent consti

223 Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak standardized up

224 ent diffusion coefficient (ADC), PET maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SI on T2-weighted im

225 mumab tumor uptake was quantified as maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

226 lesions was measured as maximum single-voxel standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

227 cizumab uptake was quantified by the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

228 PET parameters included MTV and maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax).

229 ssed the impact of 2 PET parameters, maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and total lesion gly

230 vestigated; these included (18)F-FDG maximal standardized uptake values (SUVmax) averaged for slices

231 evel, visually and quantitatively by maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) for both tracers.

232 CE MR imaging data and compared with maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) from FDG PET/CT data

233 he prognostic value of percentage of maximum standardized uptake value (%SUVmax) remaining in the pri

234 ntified by the SUVmaxavg (average of maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax] for up to 5 tumors wi

235 associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma (maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax] range, 3.1-6.7) and 1

236 appropriate threshold (percentage of maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax]) to delineate subvolu

237 h tumor: (18)F-FDG uptake ((18)F-FDG maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax]), CT texture (express

238 significantly between both methods (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], +7% +/- 13 for BG vs

239 ic symmetric lymphadenopathy (median maximal standardized uptake value [SUVmax], 6.0; range, 2.0-8.0)

240 sion tomography (PET)/CT parameters (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], total metabolic tumo

241 Indeed, the calculation of mean standardized uptake value (SUVmean) and maximal SUV (SUV

242 s and to compare (18)F FSPG mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmean and SUVmax, respecti

243 of interest on fat and water images and mean standardized uptake values (SUVmean) were determined bil

244 mum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak), and number and size

245 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) and SUV gradients as a

246 scle area to obtain time-activity curves and standardized uptake values (SUVs) between 60 and 90 min.

247 dose while maintaining validity in comparing standardized uptake values (SUVs) between studies.

248 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) from the 2 devices wer

249 T/CT studies were analyzed; mean and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs) in manually drawn regi

250 ive was to determine whether early change in standardized uptake values (SUVs) of 3'deoxy-3'-(18)F-fl

251 c activity, total lesion volume, and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVs) of pathologic FDG upta

252 The standardized uptake values (SUVs) of the cortical retent

253 ages, which could together make the measured standardized uptake values (SUVs) vary by a factor great

254 Standardized uptake values (SUVs) were calculated for 24

255 For each scan, the maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) were calculated in 5 a

256 (18)F FACBC PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were compared with tho

257 Whole-brain standardized uptake values (SUVs) were determined, and a

258 PET standardized uptake values (SUVs) were quantified with v

259 The mean standardized uptake values (SUVs) were recorded for 18 o

260 By using the cumulative distribution of standardized uptake values (SUVs) within the lungs, thos

261 they relate to conventional indices such as standardized uptake values (SUVs), metabolic volume (MV)

262 h characterize and reduce the variability of standardized uptake values (SUVs).

263 18)F-FDG uptake and changes were measured as standardized uptake values (SUVs).

264 mut/mut animals showed significantly higher standardized uptake value than MENX wild-type controls (

265 For dichotomized maximum standardized uptake value, the NPVs specific to the noda

266 As quantitated by standardized uptake value, there was a gradual temporal

267 TMTV was computed by using the 41% maximum standardized uptake value thresholding method, and the o

268 tom fill and imaging and measured background standardized uptake values to assess scanner calibration

269 ent and masked interpreters measured maximum standardized uptake values to quantify metabolic activit

270 EORTC criteria, PERCIST, Deauville criteria, standardized uptake value, total lesion glycolysis, and

271 Maximum standardized uptake values, tumor-to-normal contralatera

272 The C statistic for the model including the standardized uptake value was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.68) a

273 e mean tumor-to-background ratio for maximum standardized uptake value was 20.4 +/- 17.3 (range, 2.3-

274 ase +/- standard deviation in lesion maximum standardized uptake value was 42.2% +/- 38.9 between non

275 rafenib, and the median reduction in maximum standardized uptake value was 63.5% (range, 41.3% to 86.

276 The standardized uptake value was associated with survival (

277 The optimal cutoff maximum standardized uptake value was determined to be 1.8, with

278 Maximum standardized uptake value was higher in RAS (median, 2.6

279 The maximum standardized uptake value was measured in corresponding

280 Standardized uptake value was normalized for blood (18)F

281 When the maximum standardized uptake value was set at 3.6, the sensitivit

282 The maximum standardized uptake value was significantly higher in ma

283 The median of maximum standardized uptake values was 8.5 (range, 1.3-35.8).

284 On quantitative analysis, maximum standardized uptake values was greater in mechanical tha

285 Mean and maximum standardized uptake value were also included.

286 No differences in standardized uptake value were found in the control musc

287 led increased (18)F-FDG uptake (mean +/- SEM standardized uptake values were 0.71 +/- 0.03 before and

288 and decreased (18)F-FLT uptake (mean +/- SEM standardized uptake values were 1.18 +/- 0.05 before and

289 Tumor maximum standardized uptake values were assessed by volume-of-in

290 Maximum standardized uptake values were calculated.

291 Standardized uptake values were compared with plasma VEG

292 Myocardial, lung, liver, and blood-pool standardized uptake values were determined at different

293 Standardized uptake values were determined using regions

294 From summed images, standardized uptake values were measured from the pancre

295 r calculation of target-to-nontarget ratios, standardized uptake values were normalized against healt

296 ssue, soft-tissue lesions, and bone lesions; standardized uptake values were quantitatively compared.

297 osclerotic lesions, spleen, and bone marrow (standardized uptake values wild-type versus apolipoprote

298 d by comparing mean liver region of interest standardized uptake values with the no-coil standard of

299 dioactivity in the vasculature was low (~0.1 standardized uptake value), with slow washout.

300 was quantified by measurement of the maximum standardized uptake value within a lesion (SUVmax) and t