MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104778166 · doi:10.1186/s40658-014-0100-1

Chewing-gum stimulation did not reduce the absorbed dose to salivary glands during radioiodine treatment of thyroid cancer as inferred from pre-therapy 124I PET/CT imaging

2014· article· en· W2104778166 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Jentzen, Marion Richter, James Nagarajah, Thorsten D. Poeppel, Wolfgang Brandau, Colin Dawes, Andreas Bockisch, Ina Binse

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadioiodine therapyThyroid cancerNuclear medicineThyroidSalivary glandDentistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The goal of this prospective study was to estimate the absorbed (radiation) doses to salivary glands in radioiodine therapy of thyroid cancer under chewing-gum stimulation using (124)I positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging. METHODS: Duplex ultrasonography was conducted in three test persons for visual comparison of the glandular blood flow with three different stimulation types (no stimulation, chewing tasteless gum base, sucking on lemon slices). Ten patients with newly diagnosed differentiated thyroid cancer received (124)I PET/CT dosimetry after thyroidectomy and prior to radioiodine therapy. Patients underwent a series of three (124)I PET/CT scans (4, 24, and ≥96 h after administration of 23 MBq (124)I). They were instructed to chew gum base (tasteless) approximately 20 min after ingesting the (124)I-containing capsule in the course of the first day. Absorbed doses per administered (131)I activity to the salivary glands were calculated and compared with the previously published results of the lemon-juice stimulation and non-stimulation groups. RESULTS: The sonograms in the three test persons showed that glandular blood perfusion by lemon-juice stimulation was clearly increased compared with non-stimulation or chewing of gum base. The sonogram comparison between the chewing-gum stimulation and non-stimulation demonstrated a minor increase of blood flow for the gum base-stimulated salivary glands. The mean ± standard deviation of the absorbed dose per activity under chewing-gum stimulation for the submandibular and parotid glands (within parentheses) was 0.22 ± 0.09 Gy/GBq (0.22 ± 0.08 Gy/GBq). Compared with the absorbed doses of the non-stimulation group, 0.24 ± 0.08 Gy/GBq (0.21 ± 0.05 Gy/GBq), those of the chewing-gum stimulation group showed no significant change (P > 0.60), but the absorbed doses of the lemon-juice stimulation group, 0.35 ± 0.14 Gy/GBq (0.33 ± 0.09 Gy/GBq), were significantly higher (P < 0.04) than those of the chewing-gum stimulation group. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that salivary flow induced by chewing gum base does not cause a significant reduction of the salivary gland absorbed dose compared with that in the non-stimulation group. The increased blood flow appears to be a decisive factor causing the increased (131)I absorbed doses in the lemon-juice stimulation group.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207