Optimization of methods for quantification of rCBF using high-resolution [<sup>15</sup>O]H<sub>2</sub>O PET images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to derive accurate estimates of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) from noisy dynamic [¹⁵O]H₂O PET images acquired on the high-resolution research tomograph, while retaining as much as possible the high spatial resolution of this brain scanner (2-3 mm) in parametric maps of rCBF. The PET autoradiographic method and generalized linear least-squares (GLLS), with fixed or extended to include spatially variable estimates of the dispersion of the measured input function, were compared to nonlinear least-squares (NLLS) for rCBF estimation. Six healthy volunteers underwent two [¹⁵O]H₂O PET scans with continuous arterial blood sampling. rCBF estimates were obtained from three image reconstruction methods (one analytic and two iterative, of which one includes a resolution model) to which a range of post-reconstruction filters (3D Gaussian: 2, 4 and 6 mm FWHM) were applied. The optimal injected activity was estimated to be around 11 MBq kg⁻¹ (800 MBq) by extrapolation of patient-specific noise equivalent count rates. Whole-brain rCBF values were found to be relatively insensitive to the method of reconstruction and rCBF quantification. The grey and white matter rCBF for analytic reconstruction and NLLS were 0.44 ± 0.03 and 0.15 ± 0.03 mL min⁻¹ cm⁻³, respectively, in agreement with literature values. Similar values were obtained from the other methods. For generation of parametric images using GLLS or the autoradiographic method, a filter of ≥ 4 mm was required in order to suppress noise in the PET images which otherwise produced large biases in the rCBF estimates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".