MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132112875 · doi:10.1007/s10928-010-9167-z

Tikhonov adaptively regularized gamma variate fitting to assess plasma clearance of inert renal markers

2010· article· en· W2132112875 on OpenAlexaff
Carl A. Wesolowski, R. C. Puetter, Ling Lin, Paul Babyn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. John’s Health Sciences Centre
FundersEastern Health Foundation
KeywordsTikhonov regularizationChemistryMathematicsStatisticsNuclear medicineMathematical analysisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tk-GV model fits Gamma Variates (GV) to data by Tikhonov regularization (Tk) with shrinkage constant, λ, chosen to minimize the relative error in plasma clearance, CL (ml/min). Using (169)Yb-DTPA and (99m)Tc-DTPA (n = 46, 8-9 samples, 5-240 min) bolus-dilution curves, results were obtained for fit methods: (1) Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) one and two exponential term (E₁ and E₂), (2) OLS-GV and (3) Tk-GV. Four tests examined the fit results for: (1) physicality of ranges of model parameters, (2) effects on parameter values when different data subsets are fit, (3) characterization of residuals, and (4) extrapolative error and agreement with published correction factors. Test 1 showed physical Tk-GV results, where OLS-GV fits sometimes-produced nonphysical CL. Test 2 showed the Tk-GV model produced good results with 4 or more samples drawn between 10 and 240 min. Test 3 showed that E₁ and E₂ failed goodness-of-fit testing whereas GV fits for t > 20 min were acceptably good. Test 4 showed CL(Tk-GV) clearance values agreed with published CL corrections with the general result that CL(E1) > CL(E2) > CL(Tk-GV) and finally that CL(Tk-GV) were considerably more robust, precise and accurate than CL(E2), and should replace the use of CL(E2) for these renal markers.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacokinetics and PharmacodynamicsSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207