MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169755988 · doi:10.1148/radiol.13130024

How Influential Is the Duration of Contrast Material Bolus Injection in Perfusion CT? Evaluation in a Swine Model

2013· article· en· W2169755988 on OpenAlexaff
Sonja Kandel, Henning Meyer, Markus Boehnert, Bernice E. Hoppel, Narinder Paul, Patrik Rogalla

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerfusionMedicineBolus (digestion)Nuclear medicinePerfusion scanningRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of the duration of contrast material bolus injection on perfusion values in a swine model by using the maximum slope method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional animal care committee. Twenty pigs (weight range, 63-77 kg) underwent dynamic volume computed tomography (CT) of the kidneys during suspended respiration. Before the CT examination, a miniature cuff-shaped ultrasonographic flow probe encircling the right renal artery was surgically implanted in each pig to obtain true perfusion values. Two sequential perfusion CT series were performed in 30 seconds, each comprising 30 volumes with identical parameters (100 kV, 200 mAs, 0.5 sec rotation time). The duration of contrast material bolus (0.5 mL/kg of body weight) was 3.8 seconds in the first series (short bolus series) and 11.5 seconds in the second series (long bolus series), and the injection flow rate was adapted accordingly. In each pig, cortical kidney volume was determined by using the volume with the highest cortical enhancement. CT perfusion values were calculated for both series by using the maximum slope method and were statistically compared and correlated with the true perfusion values from the flow probe by using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean true perfusion and CT perfusion values (in minutes(-1)) for the short bolus series were 1.95 and 2.03, respectively (P = .22), and for the long bolus series, they were 2.02 and 1.92, respectively (P = .12). CT perfusion showed very good correlation with true perfusion in both the short (slope, 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.91, 1.11) and long (slope, 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.78, 1.04) series. On the basis of the regression analysis, CT perfusion values in the short bolus series were overestimated by 1% and those in the long bolus series were underestimated by 8%. CONCLUSION: Duration of contrast material bolus injection does not influence CT perfusion values substantially. The longer, clinically preferred intravenous injection scheme is sufficiently accurate for CT perfusion.

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)0.000
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 score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207