MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040137111 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115768

Image Derived Input Function for [18F]-FEPPA: Application to Quantify Translocator Protein (18 kDa) in the Human Brain

2014· article· en· W2040137111 on OpenAlexafffund
Rostom Mabrouk, Pablo Rusjan, Romina Mizrahi, Mark F. Jacobs, Yuko Koshimori, Sylvain Houle, Ji Hyun Ko, Antonio P. Strafella

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranslocator proteinHuman brainBrain functionComputational biologyFunction (biology)NeuroscienceBiologyMedicineCell biologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In [18F]-FEPPA positron emission topography (PET) imaging, automatic blood sampling system (ABSS) is currently the gold standard to obtain the blood time activity curve (TAC) required to extract the input function (IF). Here, we compare the performance of two image-based methods of IF extraction to the ABSS gold standard method for the quantification of translocator protein (TSPO) in the human brain. The IFs were obtained from a direct delineation of the internal carotid signal (CS) and a new concept of independent component analysis (ICA). PET scans were obtained from 18 healthy volunteers. The estimated total distribution volume (V(T)) by CS-IF and ICA-IF were compared to the reference V(T) obtained by ABSS-IF in the frontal and temporal cortex, cerebellum, striatum and thalamus regions. The V(T) values estimated using ICA-IF were more reliable than CS-IF for all brain regions. Specifically, the slope regression in the frontal cortex with ICA-IF was r² = 0.91 (p<0.05), and r² = 0.71 (p<0.05) using CS-IF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207