Comparison of <sup>111</sup>In Leakage from Labeled Endocardial and Epicardial Cells: Impact on Modeling Viability of Cells to Be Transplanted into Myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Previously we proposed a cellular imaging technique to determine the surviving fraction of transplanted cells in vivo. Epicardial kinetics using Indium-111 determined the Debris Impulse Response Function (DIRF) and leakage coefficient parameters. Convolution-based modeling which corrected for these signal contributions indicated that (111)In activity was quantitative of cell viability with half-lives within 20 hrs to 37 days. We determine if the 37-day upper limit remains valid for endocardial injections by comparing previous epicardial cell leakage parameter estimates to those for endocardial cells. Methods. Normal canine myocardium was injected ((111)In-tropolone) epicardially (9 injections) or endocardially (10 injections). Continuous whole body and SPECT scans for 5 hours were acquired with three weekly follow-up imaging sessions up to 20-26 days. Time-activity curves evaluated each injection type. Results. The epicardial and endocardial kinetics were not significantly different (Epi: 1286 ± 253; Endo: 1567 ± 470 hours P = .62). Conclusion. The original epicardial estimate of leakage kinetics has been validated for use in endocardial injections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".