English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

nce we have the numbers in hand, there is a mysterious tendency to accord them special value. These are the words written by John W. Keyes Jr in his review of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose standard uptake value in 1995.1 In any medical imaging modality, although visual evaluation is always fundamental, quantitative analysis has been developed to support our visual impression. As the quantitative methods progress and gain reliability, they gradually gain the attention of physicians in clinical diagnoses. When the reliability of the number is finally established, it confirms and modifies the visual diagnosis, and it even educates beginners for appropriate diagnosis.

Visual vs. Quantitative Assessment