MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140425738 · doi:10.1186/s40658-014-0097-5

The effect of object size on the sensitivity of single photon emission computed tomography: comparison of two CZT cardiac cameras and an Anger scintillation camera

2014· article· en· W2140425738 on OpenAlexaff
Elazar A Bienenstock, Marguerite Ennis

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaWilliam Osler Health SystemThe Scarborough Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear medicineMedicineSingle-photon emission computed tomographyMyocardial perfusion imagingImaging phantomScintillationPhysicsMaterials sciencePerfusionRadiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart sizes vary greatly across the spectrum of patients referred for myocardial perfusion imaging. We therefore performed a phantom study to explore under controlled circumstances how count rates change when different volumes containing the same amount of activity are scanned. Two dedicated cadmium-zinc-telluride cameras, the D-SPECT (Spectrum Dynamics, Caesarea, Israel) and Discovery 530c (D530c, GE Healthcare, Haifa, Israel), and the conventional SPECT Anger (A-SPECT, GE Healthcare, Haifa, Israel) camera are included in the study. METHODS: Different heart sizes were represented by syringes of various column heights mimicking a range of cardiac diameters. Syringes with fixed activity were scanned at five different volumes by successively adding non-radioactive water to the syringes. This procedure was repeated five times on each of the three cameras. Raw count rates were recorded for each scan to determine whether count rates changed with syringe column height. RESULTS: Using mixed-effect regression modeling, a linear relationship was found between count rate and water column height. For the D-SPECT, D530c, and A-SPECT, the changes in count rate for each centimeter increase in water column height were -1.75, +0.28, and -0.022 kilocounts per min per MBq, respectively (95% confidence intervals -1.89 to -1.61, 0.19 to 0.36, and -0.035 to -0.009); all effects are significantly different from each other and significantly different from zero. Average coefficients of variation were 0.080, 0.028, and 0.009. CONCLUSIONS: The D-SPECT demonstrated a significant progressive increase in count rate related to decreasing size of the imaged object. D530c count rate increased slightly with increasing column height. The Anger SPECT showed minimally increased count rates with decreasing column height, an order of magnitude smaller than the D-SPECT based on their relative coefficients of variation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207