MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067347526 · doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1443-z

Image-derived input function in dynamic human PET/CT: methodology and validation with 11C-acetate and 18F-fluorothioheptadecanoic acid in muscle and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in brain

2010· article· en· W2067347526 on OpenAlexafffund
Étienne Croteau, Éric Lavallée, Sébastien M. Labbé, Laurent Hubert, Fabien Pifferi, Jacques Rousseau, Stephen C. Cunnane, André C. Carpentier, Roger Lecomte, François Bénard

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer AgencyCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsImaging phantomMedicineNuclear medicinePositron emission tomographyPerfusionFemoral arteryPerfusion scanningBlood samplingBolus (digestion)FluorodeoxyglucoseRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Despite current advances in PET/CT systems, blood sampling still remains the standard method to obtain the radiotracer input function for tracer kinetic modelling. The purpose of this study was to validate the use of image-derived input functions (IDIF) of the carotid and femoral arteries to measure the arterial input function (AIF) in PET imaging. The data were obtained from two different research studies, one using (18)F-FDG for brain imaging and the other using (11)C-acetate and (18)F-fluoro-6-thioheptadecanoic acid ((18)F-FTHA) in femoral muscles. METHODS: The method was validated with two phantom systems. First, a static phantom consisting of syringes of different diameters containing radioactivity was used to determine the recovery coefficient (RC) and spill-in factors. Second, a dynamic phantom built to model bolus injection and clearance of tracers was used to establish the correlation between blood sampling, AIF and IDIF. The RC was then applied to the femoral artery data from PET imaging studies with (11)C-acetate and (18)F-FTHA and to carotid artery data from brain imaging with (18)F-FDG. These IDIF data were then compared to actual AIFs from patients. RESULTS: With (11)C-acetate, the perfusion index in the femoral muscle was 0.34+/-0.18 min(-1) when estimated from the actual time-activity blood curve, 0.29+/-0.15 min(-1) when estimated from the corrected IDIF, and 0.66+/-0.41 min(-1) when the IDIF data were not corrected for RC. A one-way repeated measures (ANOVA) and Tukey's test showed a statistically significant difference for the IDIF not corrected for RC (p<0.0001). With (18)F-FTHA there was a strong correlation between Patlak slopes, the plasma to tissue transfer rate calculated using the true plasma radioactivity content and the corrected IDIF for the femoral muscles (vastus lateralis r=0.86, p=0.027; biceps femoris r=0.90, p=0.017). On the other hand, there was no correlation between the values derived using the AIF and those derived using the uncorrected IDIF. Finally, in the brain imaging study with (18)F-FDG, the cerebral metabolic rate of glucose (CMRglc) measured using the uncorrected IDIF was consistently overestimated. The CMRglc obtained using blood sampling was 13.1+/-3.9 mg/100 g per minute and 14.0+/-5.7 mg/100 g per minute using the corrected IDIF (r ( 2 )=0.90). CONCLUSION: Correctly obtained, carotid and femoral artery IDIFs can be used as a substitute for AIFs to perform tracer kinetic modelling in skeletal femoral muscles and brain analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations109
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207