Repeatability of Rest and Hyperemic Myocardial Blood Flow Measurements with <sup>82</sup>Rb Dynamic PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The repeatability of rest and hyperemic myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements using 82Rb PET has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term repeatability of such measurements. METHODS: Fifteen healthy volunteers underwent rest and pharmacologic stress 82Rb PET, repeated 60 min apart. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in repeated rest MBF (0.77+/-0.25 vs. 0.82+/-0.25 mL/min/g, P=0.31; mean difference, 6.18%+/-12.22%) or repeated hyperemic MBF (3.35+/-1.37 vs. 3.39+/-1.37 mL/min/g, P=0.81; mean difference, 1.17%+/-13.64%). The repeatability coefficients were 0.19 mL/min/g for rest MBF and 0.92 mL/min/g for hyperemia. CONCLUSION: MBF using 82Rb is highly reproducible using a same-day short-term repeatability protocol. Serial MBF measurements with 82Rb PET should have the ability to quantify the acute effects of therapeutic interventions on MBF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".