SPECT in Acute Pulmonary Embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to evaluate the accuracy of SPECT in acute pulmonary embolism. Sparse data are available on the accuracy of SPECT based on an objective reference test. Several investigations were reported in which the reference standard for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism was based in part on the results of SPECT or planar ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) imaging. The sensitivity of SPECT in all but one investigation was at least 90%, and specificity also was generally at least 90%. The sensitivity of SPECT in 4 of 5 investigations was higher than that of planar V/Q imaging. The specificity of SPECT was generally higher, equal, or only somewhat lower than that of planar V/Q imaging. Most investigators reported nondiagnostic SPECT V/Q scans in no more than 3% of cases. Methods of obtaining SPECT images, methods of obtaining planar V/Q images, and the criteria for interpretation varied. The general impression is that SPECT is more advantageous than planar V/Q imaging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".