Evaluation of Mouse Tail-Vein Injections Both Qualitatively and Quantitatively on Small-Animal PET Tail Scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".