Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography versus Positron Emission Tomography–Computed Tomography: Tools for Imaging the Lung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the potential use of positron emission tomography (PET), alone and in combination with computed tomography, for evaluating the severity of disease in cystic fibrosis. PET scanning using injected 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose provides visual and quantitative information for the rate at which glucose is taken up by the lung, a process that should relate to the presence of inflammation and reflect the extent of the disease. The computed tomography scan gives highly accurate density and anatomic information to locate areas of inflammation seen on the PET scan, increasing the accuracy of the interpretation. Until recently, the scanners have been single systems, often located in separate hospital departments. Combined systems are now commercially available, with major advantages for patients and in the quality of analytical information obtained for interpretation by the physician. The use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and PET scanning has been suggested as a biomarker of progressive pulmonary inflammation in cystic fibrosis. Although promising, the data so far are limited. Further studies will be needed to validate this measurement for this purpose.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".