Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Interpretation Criteria for Assessment of Antibiotic Treatment Response in Pyogenic Spine Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to determine if fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) can assess the response of patients with pyogenic spine infection to antibiotic treatment in a clinically useful time frame. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with suspected pyogenic spine infection had baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Patients with proven or probable infection were divided into good and poor responders to antibiotic therapy based on clinical criteria. These patients had a follow-up (18)F-FDG PET/CT 6-8 weeks later. RESULTS: Six of 28 patients were deemed negative for infection based on (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Two patients were excluded because of discrepancies in interpretation. Of the 20 patients deemed positive for infection, 13 had a pathogen isolated and all showed (18)F-FDG uptake in bone and/or soft tissue at baseline. Patients with a poor clinical response to treatment had persistent (18)F-FDG uptake in bone and/or soft tissue on follow-up. Patients with good clinical response had uptake confined to the margins of the destroyed disc. None of these patients had recurrent infection, even if antibiotics had already been discontinued at the time of the follow-up scan. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG uptake confined to the margins of a destroyed disc after antibiotic therapy of pyogenic spine infection must not be considered indicative of persistent infection and likely represents mechanically induced inflammation. (18)F-FDG uptake in bone or soft tissue does indicate active infection. Quantification of activity could not reliably differentiate patients with active infection from those without active infection and those who had had a successful response to therapy. The pattern of activity is critical to accurate interpretation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".