3D versus 2D dynamic 82Rb myocardial blood flow imaging in a canine model of stunned and infarcted myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown the ability of rubidium-82 ((82)Rb) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to quantitatively measure myocardial blood flow (MBF), many of which are performed using two-dimensional (2D) imaging. Three-dimensional (3D) imaging provides increased sensitivity and may result in decreased costs owing to a reduction in the required injected activity of radiotracer. This study compares 2D and 3D (82)Rb PET MBF results obtained in the same imaging session. METHODS: Three-dimensional and 2D (82)Rb perfusion imaging was performed in canines on a GE Discovery LS PET/CT scanner at rest and during hyperemia in stunned and infarcted tissue. MBF (ml/min/g) was determined using a 1-compartment model and an extraction correction of the uptake rate and analyzed using a standard 17-segment model. RESULTS: A strong, significant correlation was present (rho = 0.95, P<0.0001). Average 3D MBF values were slightly lower at rest and higher during stress versus 2D. MBF results in normal, stunned, and infarcted tissue differed by 7% on average and significant increases in MBF from rest to hyperemia were noted with both the techniques. CONCLUSION: These results imply that MBF results obtained in 3D are comparable with traditional 2D imaging. Therefore, it may be possible to use 3D imaging with lower administered activity, helping to reduce costs and patient dose without compromising quantitative information.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".