{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]],"date-time":"2026-09-01T14:20:58Z","timestamp":1788272458476,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":29,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]],"date-time":"2026-09-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1788220800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]],"date-time":"2026-09-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1788220800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100007642","name":"Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100007642","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Ann Nucl Med"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objective<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To determine whether Q.Clear and VUE Point FX (VPFX) reconstructions obtained from the same brain [18\u00a0F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ([18\u00a0F]FDG PET) acquisition are quantitatively interchangeable, and to characterise the regional, reference-region and noise-texture dependence of any differences.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>We retrospectively analysed paired Q.Clear and VPFX reconstructions from 1,145 clinical brain PET folders. The reviewed protocol used a 10-min acquisition, Q.Clear QCFX-S with beta 150, SharpIR and no z-axis filter, and VPFX-S with 3 iterations, 16 subsets and a 4.0-mm filter. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine metadata were audited, and 1,022 readable same-examination pairs were processed in MATLAB R2026a and statistical parametric mapping version 25. A common transform estimated from mean(Q.Clear, VPFX) was applied to both reconstructions. Absolute and standardised uptake value ratio (SUVR) differences normalised to whole brain, cerebellum and pons were assessed voxel-wise and in Automated Anatomical Labelling atlas 3 regions. DICOM-derived local high-frequency and robust global coefficients of variation (CVs) were also compared.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Q.Clear increased the whole-brain, cerebellar and pontine reference means by 0.953%, 0.595% and 0.818%, respectively. Absolute regional differences were heterogeneous; after normalisation, most cortical and limbic Q.Clear-minus-VPFX differences were negative. The medial temporal whole-brain-normalised difference was \u2212\u20090.00625 (Cohen dz -2.09), equivalent to approximately\u2009\u2212\u20090.69% at an illustrative VPFX SUVR of 0.90. Covariate-adjusted voxel-wise T maps were nearly identical to no-covariate maps (\n                      <jats:italic>r<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.9996\u20130.9999; sign concordance\u2009&gt;\u2009=\u200999.96%). Local high-frequency CV was lower with VPFX in 689 pairs and with Q.Clear in 333, whereas robust global CV was lower with Q.Clear in 903 pairs, with one tie.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Q.Clear and VPFX were not quantitatively interchangeable under the evaluated protocol. The study establishes protocol-specific reconstruction-dependent differences, not the direction of quantitative accuracy, because no ground truth was available. Harmonised reconstruction and validation are required when quantitative brain PET data are compared or pooled.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s12149-026-02278-x","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]],"date-time":"2026-09-01T13:53:32Z","timestamp":1788270812000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Reconstruction-dependent differences in brain [18F]FDG PET: a large-scale same-acquisition comparison of Q.Clear and VUE Point FX"],"prefix":"10.1007","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8017-8858","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Agostino","family":"Chiaravalloti","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Daniele","family":"di Biagio","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Nicola","family":"D\u2019Ascenzo","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Nicoletta","family":"Urbano","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alessandro","family":"Martorana","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Orazio","family":"Schillaci","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]]},"reference":[{"key":"2278_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"632","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-021-05603-w","volume":"49","author":"E Guedj","year":"2022","unstructured":"Guedj E, Varrone A, Boellaard R, Albert NL, Barthel H, van Berckel B, et al. EANM procedure guidelines for brain PET imaging using [18F]FDG, version 3. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:632\u201351. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00259-021-05603-w.","journal-title":"Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging"},{"key":"2278_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"102386","DOI":"10.1016\/j.nicl.2020.102386","volume":"28","author":"E Lindstr\u00f6m","year":"2020","unstructured":"Lindstr\u00f6m E, Oddstig J, Danfors T, J\u00f6gi J, Hansson O, Lubberink M. Image reconstruction methods affect software-aided assessment of pathologies of [18F]flutemetamol and [18F]FDG brain-PET examinations in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Neuroimage Clin. 2020;28:102386. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.nicl.2020.102386.","journal-title":"Neuroimage Clin"},{"key":"2278_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"37","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-024-00641-3","volume":"11","author":"K Wagatsuma","year":"2024","unstructured":"Wagatsuma K, Sakata M, Miwa K, Hamano Y, Kawakami H, Kamitaka Y, et al. Phantom and clinical evaluation of the Bayesian penalised likelihood reconstruction algorithm Q.Clear without PSF correction in amyloid PET images. EJNMMI Phys. 2024;11:37. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40658-024-00641-3.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1627","DOI":"10.1007\/s13246-024-01476-z","volume":"47","author":"S Fukuda","year":"2024","unstructured":"Fukuda S, Wagatsuma K, Miwa K, Yakushiji Y, Kamitaka Y, Yamao T, et al. Optimization of penalization function in Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction algorithm for [18F]flutemetamol amyloid PET images. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2024;47:1627\u201337. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s13246-024-01476-z.","journal-title":"Phys Eng Sci Med"},{"key":"2278_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2995","DOI":"10.1002\/mp.15593","volume":"49","author":"K Wagatsuma","year":"2022","unstructured":"Wagatsuma K, Miwa K, Kamitaka Y, Koike E, Yamao T, Yoshii T, et al. Determination of optimal regularization factor in Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction of brain PET images using [18F]FDG and [11\u00a0C]PiB. Med Phys. 2022;49:2995\u20133005. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/mp.15593.","journal-title":"Med Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"41","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-021-00386-3","volume":"8","author":"D Ribeiro","year":"2021","unstructured":"Ribeiro D, Hallett W, Tavares AAS. Performance evaluation of the Q.Clear reconstruction framework versus conventional reconstruction algorithms for quantitative brain PET-MR studies. EJNMMI Phys. 2021;8:41. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40658-021-00386-3.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-021-00428-w","volume":"9","author":"D Tian","year":"2022","unstructured":"Tian D, Yang H, Li Y, Cui B, Lu J. The effect of Q.Clear reconstruction on quantification and spatial resolution of 18F-FDG PET in simultaneous PET\/MR. EJNMMI Phys. 2022;9:1. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40658-021-00428-w.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-020-0270-y","volume":"7","author":"JM Rogasch","year":"2020","unstructured":"Rogasch JM, Suleiman S, Hofheinz F, Bluemel S, Lukas M, Amthauer H, et al. Reconstructed spatial resolution and contrast recovery with Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) for FDG-PET compared to time-of-flight with point spread function. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40658-020-0270-y.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-023-00527-w","volume":"10","author":"K Miwa","year":"2023","unstructured":"Miwa K, Yoshii T, Wagatsuma K, Nezu S, Kamitaka Y, Yamao T, et al. Impact of gamma factor in the penalty function of Bayesian penalized likelihood reconstruction (Q.Clear) to achieve high-resolution PET images. EJNMMI Phys. 2023;10:4. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40658-023-00527-w.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1511","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.117.189514","volume":"58","author":"DFC Hsu","year":"2017","unstructured":"Hsu DFC, Ilan E, Peterson WT, Uribe J, Lubberink M, Levin CS. Studies of a next-generation silicon-photomultiplier-based time-of-flight PET\/CT system. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1511\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2967\/jnumed.117.189514.","journal-title":"J Nucl Med"},{"key":"2278_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3025","DOI":"10.1002\/mp.13576","volume":"46","author":"T Pan","year":"2019","unstructured":"Pan T, Einstein SA, Kappadath SC, Grogg KS, Gomez CL, Alessio AM, et al. Performance evaluation of the 5-ring GE Discovery MI PET\/CT system using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association NU 2-2012 Standard. Med Phys. 2019;46:3025\u201333. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/mp.13576.","journal-title":"Med Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4","DOI":"10.1186\/s40658-020-0271-x","volume":"7","author":"A Chicheportiche","year":"2020","unstructured":"Chicheportiche A, Marciano R, Orevi M. Comparison of NEMA characterizations for Discovery MI and Discovery MI-DR TOF PET\/CT systems at different sites and with other commercial PET\/CT systems. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:4. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40658-020-0271-x.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Phys"},{"key":"2278_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3023","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-022-05751-7","volume":"49","author":"KG Zeimpekis","year":"2022","unstructured":"Zeimpekis KG, Kotasidis FA, Huellner M, Nemirovsky A, Kaufmann PA, Treyer V. NEMA NU 2-2018 performance evaluation of a new generation 30-cm axial field-of-view Discovery MI PET\/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:3023\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00259-022-05751-7.","journal-title":"Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging"},{"key":"2278_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"117229","DOI":"10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2020.117229","volume":"222","author":"FJ L\u00f3pez-Gonz\u00e1lez","year":"2020","unstructured":"L\u00f3pez-Gonz\u00e1lez FJ, Silva-Rodr\u00edguez J, Paredes-Pacheco J, Ni\u00f1erola-Baiz\u00e1n A, Efthimiou N, Mart\u00edn-Mart\u00edn C, et al. Intensity normalization methods in brain FDG-PET quantification. NeuroImage. 2020;222:117229. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2020.117229.","journal-title":"NeuroImage"},{"key":"2278_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"31","DOI":"10.1186\/s13550-021-00771-0","volume":"11","author":"A Verger","year":"2021","unstructured":"Verger A, Doyen M, Campion JY, Guedj E. The pons as reference region for intensity normalization in semi-quantitative analysis of brain 18FDG PET: application to metabolic changes related to ageing in conventional and digital control databases. EJNMMI Res. 2021;11:31. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13550-021-00771-0.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Res"},{"key":"2278_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2486","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-020-05175-1","volume":"48","author":"SP Caminiti","year":"2021","unstructured":"Caminiti SP, Sala A, Presotto L, Chincarini A, Sestini S, Perani D, et al. Validation of FDG-PET datasets of normal controls for the extraction of SPM-based brain metabolism maps. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2486\u201399. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00259-020-05175-1.","journal-title":"Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging"},{"key":"2278_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"116189","DOI":"10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2019.116189","volume":"206","author":"ET Rolls","year":"2020","unstructured":"Rolls ET, Huang CC, Lin CP, Feng J, Joliot M. Automated anatomical labelling atlas 3. NeuroImage. 2020;206:116189. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2019.116189.","journal-title":"NeuroImage"},{"key":"2278_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"8103","DOI":"10.21105\/joss.08103","volume":"10","author":"TM Tierney","year":"2025","unstructured":"Tierney TM, Alexander NA, Ashburner J, Avila NL, Balbastre Y, Barnes G, et al. SPM 25: open source neuroimaging analysis software. J Open Source Softw. 2025;10:8103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.21105\/joss.08103.","journal-title":"J Open Source Softw"},{"key":"2278_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1036","DOI":"10.3390\/brainsci15101036","volume":"15","author":"A Chong","year":"2025","unstructured":"Chong A, Ha JM, Chung JY. Does Q.Clear processing change PET ratios? Quantitative evidence using BTXBrain-DAT. Brain Sci. 2025;15:1036. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/brainsci15101036.","journal-title":"Brain Sci"},{"key":"2278_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"3508","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-022-05784-y","volume":"49","author":"HG Pemberton","year":"2022","unstructured":"Pemberton HG, Collij LE, Heeman F, Bollack A, Shekari M, Salvad\u00f3 G, et al. Quantification of amyloid PET for future clinical use: a state-of-the-art review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:3508\u201328. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00259-022-05784-y.","journal-title":"Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging"},{"key":"2278_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"294","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.122.264031","volume":"64","author":"AM Smith","year":"2023","unstructured":"Smith AM, Obuchowski NA, Foster NL, Klein G, Mozley PD, Lammertsma AA, et al. The RSNA QIBA Profile for Amyloid PET as an imaging biomarker for cerebral amyloid quantification. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:294\u2013303. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2967\/jnumed.122.264031.","journal-title":"J Nucl Med"},{"key":"2278_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1565","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jalz.2018.06.1353","volume":"14","author":"M Navitsky","year":"2018","unstructured":"Navitsky M, Joshi AD, Kennedy I, Klunk WE, Rowe CC, Wong DF, et al. Standardization of amyloid quantitation with florbetapir standardized uptake value ratios to the Centiloid scale. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14:1565\u201371. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jalz.2018.06.1353.","journal-title":"Alzheimers Dement"},{"key":"2278_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"107","DOI":"10.1186\/s13550-018-0456-7","volume":"8","author":"MR Battle","year":"2018","unstructured":"Battle MR, Pillay LC, Lowe VJ, Knopman D, Kemp B, Rowe CC, et al. Centiloid scaling for quantification of brain amyloid with [18F]flutemetamol using multiple processing methods. EJNMMI Res. 2018;8:107. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13550-018-0456-7.","journal-title":"EJNMMI Res"},{"key":"2278_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1938","DOI":"10.1007\/s00259-019-04596-x","volume":"47","author":"SH Cho","year":"2020","unstructured":"Cho SH, Choe YS, Kim HJ, Jang H, Kim Y, Kim SE, et al. A new Centiloid method for 18F-florbetaben and 18F-flutemetamol PET without conversion to PiB. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:1938\u201348. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00259-019-04596-x.","journal-title":"Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging"},{"key":"2278_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"100","DOI":"10.2967\/jnumed.118.209130","volume":"60","author":"P Chiao","year":"2019","unstructured":"Chiao P, Bedell BJ, Avants B, Zijdenbos AP, Grand\u2019Maison M, O\u2019Neill P, et al. Impact of reference and target region selection on amyloid PET SUV ratios in the phase 1B PRIME study of aducanumab. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:100\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2967\/jnumed.118.209130.","journal-title":"J Nucl Med"},{"key":"2278_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"119527","DOI":"10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2022.119527","volume":"262","author":"P Bourgeat","year":"2022","unstructured":"Bourgeat P, Dor\u00e9 V, Burnham SC, Benzinger T, Tosun D, Li S, et al. Beta-amyloid PET harmonisation across longitudinal studies: application to AIBL, ADNI and OASIS3. NeuroImage. 2022;262:119527. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2022.119527.","journal-title":"NeuroImage"},{"key":"2278_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5102","DOI":"10.1002\/alz.13883","volume":"20","author":"M Shekari","year":"2024","unstructured":"Shekari M, V\u00e1llez Garc\u00eda D, Collij LE, Altomare D, Heeman F, Pemberton H, et al. Stress testing the Centiloid: precision and variability of PET quantification of amyloid pathology. Alzheimers Dement. 2024;20:5102\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/alz.13883.","journal-title":"Alzheimers Dement"},{"key":"2278_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"118775","DOI":"10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2021.118775","volume":"246","author":"L Iaccarino","year":"2022","unstructured":"Iaccarino L, La Joie R, Koeppe R, Siegel BA, Hillner BE, Gatsonis C, et al. rPOP: robust PET-only processing of community acquired heterogeneous amyloid-PET data. NeuroImage. 2022;246:118775. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.neuroimage.2021.118775.","journal-title":"NeuroImage"},{"key":"2278_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1716","DOI":"10.1007\/s00330-023-10056-w","volume":"34","author":"T Sartoretti","year":"2024","unstructured":"Sartoretti T, Skawran S, Gennari AG, Maurer A, Euler A, Treyer V, et al. Fully automated computational measurement of noise in positron emission tomography. Eur Radiol. 2024;34:1716\u201323. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00330-023-10056-w.","journal-title":"Eur Radiol"}],"container-title":["Annals of Nuclear Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s12149-026-02278-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s12149-026-02278-x","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s12149-026-02278-x.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]],"date-time":"2026-09-01T13:53:34Z","timestamp":1788270814000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s12149-026-02278-x"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]]},"references-count":29,"alternative-id":["2278"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12149-026-02278-x","relation":{},"ISSN":["0914-7187","1864-6433"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0914-7187","type":"print"},{"value":"1864-6433","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,1]]},"assertion":[{"value":"28 June 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"23 August 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"1 September 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Competing interests","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local Ethics Committee.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethics approval","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Given the retrospective design and the use of anonymised clinical and imaging data, the requirement for written informed consent was waived by the local Ethics Committee.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent to participate","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent to publish","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}]}}