MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056717485 · doi:10.1117/12.2037427

Dual-tracer receptor concentration imaging using tracers with different tissue delivery kinetics

2014· article· en· W2056717485 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth M. Tichauer, Mamadou Diop, Jonathan T. Elliott, Kimberley S. Samkoe, Tayyaba Hasan, Keith St. Lawrence, Brian W. Pogue

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRACERKineticsDual (grammatical number)ChemistryBiomedical engineeringBiophysicsMedicinePhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simultaneous dynamic fluorescent imaging of a suitable untargeted tracer in conjunction with any molecular targeted fluorescent agent has been shown to be a powerful approach for quantifying cancer-specific cell surface receptors in vivo in the presence of non-specific uptake and tracer delivery variability. The identification of a “suitable” untargeted tracer (i.e., one having equivalent plasma and tissue delivery pharmacokinetics to the targeted tracer) for every targeted tracer, however, may not always be feasible or could require extensive testing. This work presents a “deconvolution” approach capable of correcting for plasma and tissue-delivery pharmacokinetic differences between tracers by quantifying dynamic differences in targeted and untargeted tracer uptake in a receptor-free tissue (one devoid of targeted molecular species) and correcting uptake in all other tissues accordingly. This deconvolution correction approach is evaluated in theoretical models and explored in an in vivo mouse xenograft model of human glioma. In the animal experiments, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR: a receptor known to be overexpressed in the investigated glioma cell line) was targeted using a fluorescent tracer with very different plasma pharmacokinetics than a second untargeted fluorescent tracer. Without correcting for these differences, the dual-tracer approach yielded substantially higher estimations of EGFR concentration in all tissues than expected; however, deconvolution correction was able to produce estimates that matched ex vivo validation.

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)0.000
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207