Comparing the image quality of myocardial perfusion agents in the clinical laboratory: small test groups and large reference populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 TF scans (n = 53) were compared with MIBI scans for the adjacent weeks (n = 54) and with a historical reference series (n = 1800).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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".