Accounting for pharmacokinetic differences in dual-tracer receptor density imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-tracer molecular imaging is a powerful approach to quantify receptor expression in a wide range of tissues by using an untargeted tracer to account for any nonspecific uptake of a molecular-targeted tracer. This approach has previously required the pharmacokinetics of the receptor-targeted and untargeted tracers to be identical, requiring careful selection of an ideal untargeted tracer for any given targeted tracer. In this study, methodology capable of correcting for tracer differences in arterial input functions, as well as binding-independent delivery and retention, is derived and evaluated in a mouse U251 glioma xenograft model using an Affibody tracer targeted to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), a cell membrane receptor overexpressed in many cancers. Simulations demonstrated that blood, and to a lesser extent vascular-permeability, pharmacokinetic differences between targeted and untargeted tracers could be quantified by deconvolving the uptakes of the two tracers in a region of interest devoid of targeted tracer binding, and therefore corrected for, by convolving the uptake of the untargeted tracer in all regions of interest by the product of the deconvolution. Using fluorescently labeled, EGFR-targeted and untargeted Affibodies (known to have different blood clearance rates), the average tumor concentration of EGFR in four mice was estimated using dual-tracer kinetic modeling to be 3.9 ± 2.4 nM compared to an expected concentration of 2.0 ± 0.4 nM. However, with deconvolution correction a more equivalent EGFR concentration of 2.0 ± 0.4 nM was measured.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".