MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166118250 · doi:10.2967/jnmt.111.090951

Evaluation of Mouse Tail-Vein Injections Both Qualitatively and Quantitatively on Small-Animal PET Tail Scans

2011· article· en· W2166118250 on OpenAlex
Douglass Vines, D. E. Green, Gen Kudo, H. Keller

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vivoTail veinNuclear medicineEx vivoVeinMedicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Quantitative small-animal PET of mice requires successful delivery of radiotracers into the venous system. Intravenous injection of radiotracers via lateral tail veins is the most commonly used method of administration and can be technically challenging. Evaluation of the quality of an intravenous injection is necessary to determine whether small-animal PET is quantitatively accurate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the quality of 50 consecutive intravenous injections into mouse tail veins using both quantitative and qualitative methods. METHODS: During (18)F-FDG intravenous injection, qualitative assessment of the injection was performed and classified according to specific criteria as good, intermediate, or poor. Small-animal PET scans of the body and tail were acquired, and tail injection sites were quantitatively assessed in terms of percentage injected dose per gram and classified as low, medium, or high uptake of (18)F-FDG. Qualitative and quantitative methods were compared. To assess baseline amounts of (18)F-FDG in the tail without a tail injection, 3 additional mice were injected by the intraperitoneal method, imaged, and quantitatively assessed in the same manner. The in vivo imaging data were validated on 7 additional mice by sacrificing them after scans, removing their tails, rescanning the tails, and then measuring the tail radioactivity ex vivo in a γ-counter and correlating it with the in vivo amount. RESULTS: Validation of in vivo imaging to ex vivo data yielded an excellent correlation, with an r(2) value of 0.95. Comparison of qualitative and quantitative methods yielded 45 matching results (42 good and low, 2 intermediate and medium, and 1 poor and high). There were 5 cases of mismatching results (1 false-negative and 4 false-positive) between qualitative and quantitative methods. Low-uptake tail injections were comparable to the intraperitoneal injection values. Using qualitative methods, accuracy was true 90% (45/50) of the time. The overall rate of successful intravenous injections was 92% (46/50) using quantitative methods. CONCLUSION: Qualitative assessment is all that is necessary if the intravenous injection is classified as good. In intermediate, poor, or uncertain classifications, a scan of the tail should be performed for quantitative assessment.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.270 · 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