Radiography, 99mTc–HDP, and 111In Labeled Vitamin B12 SPECT of Canine Osteosarcoma: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this article was to compare radiography, planar bone scintigraphy, and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to determine the size of osteosarcomas in long bones of dogs. Ten dogs with osteosarcoma in six radii, two humeri, one tibia, and one ulna were evaluated. Macroslides, mediolateral radiographs, planar scintigrams, and sagittal images from SPECT scans were used to obtain measurements. On the scintigraphic images, the edges of the tumor were established using the activity profile imaging tool. The radiographic magnification was factored. The mean percentage of tumor size overestimation was 9.29% on mediolateral radiographs, 5.35% on planar scintigrams, and 33.25% on SPECT images. The correlation coefficient adjusted for sample size was significantly higher (P<0.01) for technetium 99m ((99m)Tc) hydroxyethylene diphosphonate (HDP) (75.5%) and radiography (61.3%) compared with indium 111-vitamin B(12) (28.3%). The correlation coefficient for (99m)Tc-HDP was higher than that obtained for radiographs; however, statistical difference between the two variables was not demonstrated (P>0.05). (99m)Tc bone scan is a good estimator of intramedullary size of osteosarcoma in long bones when the activity profile tool to determine the margin of the tumor is used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".