MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Threshold modification for tumour imaging in non-small-cell lung cancer using positron emission tomography

2005· article· en· W1991173463 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Yaremko, T. Riauka, Donald M. Robinson, Brad Murray, Alexander McEwan, Wilson Roa

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositron emission tomographyLung cancerNuclear medicinePositronTomographyPositron emissionRadiation treatment planningCancer imagingRadiation therapyMedicinePhysicsRadiologyCancerOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Positron emission tomography (PET) has been used increasingly in the staging and radiotherapy treatment planning of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study investigates the factors that affect the resultant size of a given image on PET. METHODS: PET was used to assess the geometric characteristics of a series of radioisotope-filled, stationary spheres of known volume, surrounded by positron-emitting radioactive tracer of variable activity. The resultant PET-derived spherical volumes were then referenced to the known spherical volumes in order to illustrate quantitatively the potential influence of image threshold, tumour size and background concentration. This influence was further illustrated by clinical examples. RESULTS: Considering the diameter of the spheres used in this study (10-48 mm), higher image thresholds were required for accurate rendering of the smallest spherical volumes. This inverse relationship was most consistently illustrated at the lowest background intensity ratios. CONCLUSION: PET-derived volumes of NSCLC must be interpreted with caution. The data presented in this study may be used to guide the selection of appropriate image thresholds for potential clinical application.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207