MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparing the image quality of myocardial perfusion agents in the clinical laboratory: small test groups and large reference populations

2000· article· en· W1999886314 on OpenAlexafffund
G A Hurwitz, Deidre McLaughlin, Piotr J. Slomka

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMedicineDipyridamoleNuclear medicinePerfusionMyocardial perfusion imagingPopulationDosingTechnetium (99mTc) sestamibiRadiologyInternal medicineScintigraphy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myocardial perfusion studies have been performed for 6 years using technetium-99m (99Tcm)-sestamibi (MIBI). In this study we evaluated a newer agent, 99Tcm-tetrofosmin (TF), on a trial basis for 2 weeks, and compared the results from each week to those in an adjacent week of MIBI use. The routine protocol included weight-based dosing, frequent dipyridamole use, and separate-day rest and stress wherever possible. During the first week, TF was used with 'usual' image timing, i.e. stress tomography performed 30-60 min after stress, and ancillary immediate images performed 4 min after injection. For the second week, 'early' tomography was performed 15-30 min after stress. TF scans (n = 53) were compared with MIBI scans for the adjacent weeks (n = 54) and with a historical reference series (n = 1800). Blinded analysis was made of tomographic image quality, peak myocardial counts and background activity (lung and abdomen) on immediate and delayed acquisitions and on tomographic reconstructions. The TF and MIBI test groups were similar with respect to gender, weight, stress protocol, tracer doses, imaging times and scintigraphic findings. Using analysis of variance, the tomographic quality scores were similar for the two observers, with stress>rest (P<0.0001), 'usual'>'early' (P<0.001) and MIBI>TF (P<0.05). Myocardial counts were approximately 20% higher with the MIBI test group than with TF at all times after stress (P=0.001), and were similar to the reference population. MIBI with usual timing gave more favourable stress abdominal background ratios than the other three agent/timing combinations. Satisfactory images could be obtained with TF, but no apparent advantage over MIBI could be attained with earlier post-stress imaging. Subtle advantages for MIBI over TF were suggested by comparison of the small test groups. In our local imaging context, these conclusions were reinforced by a large control series.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207