MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125546658 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.1997.670478

Early clinical results from PEM 1: a high resolution system for positron emission mammography

2002· article· en· W2125546658 on OpenAlexaff
K. Murthy, Alanah Bergman, C.J. Thompson, James L. Robar, Robert Lisbona, Antoine Loutfi, J. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

Venue1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammographyBreast cancerPositron emission tomographyNuclear medicineMedicineScannerLeft breastCancerRadiologyPhysicsInternal medicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report first results of the stage one clinical trial performed with the Positron Emission Mammography-1(PEM-1) scanner. Patients selected are >20 years of age with no history of treatment for cancer, recently diagnosed with an unclassified tumour mass of <2 cm diameter in one breast. A 2 mCi (74 MBq) injection of 2-[18F]-fluoro-deoxy-2-D-glucose (FDG) is given 40 minutes prior to scanning. The scan is a two step process. (1) The patient's mammogram is obtained with the tumour and a co-registration tool in the field-of-view (FOV). (2) Without moving the patient, the PEM detectors are moved in and emission data is collected for up to 5 minutes. The mammogram is digitized and fused with the reconstructed PEM image. To date, the authors have scanned eleven patients. In one subject a tumour <1 cm in diameter was localised visually as a hot spot 1.2 cm/spl times/0.8 cm in two dimensions. There was close to 4:1 increase in the focal uptake of FDG at the tumour site. Knowing the thickness of the compressed breast one can locate the tumour depth within the breast. There have been five true-positive results/spl times/these subjects were all correctly diagnosed by PEM-1 as having breast cancer; four true-negative results these subjects tested negative for breast cancer with PEM-1 and were surgically confirmed as being cancer free. There have been two false-negative results-the reasons for these are discussed in the text. The PEM-1 system is a high resolution, high efficiency and affordable system which can produce emission images accurately co-registered with X-ray mammographic images using at most 1/5 the F18-FDG and imaging for at most 1/5 the time required when conventional PET instruments are used.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference RecordSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207