MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329285146 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000011

Evaluation of dead-time corrections for post-radionuclide-therapy 177Lu quantitative imaging with low-energy high-resolution collimators

2013· article· en· W2329285146 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Ćeller, Hanna Piwowarska-Bilska, Sergey Shcherbinin, Carlos Uribe, Renata Mikołajczak, Bożena Birkenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPomorski Uniwersytet Medyczny W Szczecinie
KeywordsRadionuclide therapyImaging phantomNuclear medicineSingle-photon emission computed tomographyDosimetrySpect imagingPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Dead-time (DT) effects rarely cause problems in diagnostic single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) studies; however, in post-radionuclide-therapy imaging, DT can be substantial. Therefore, corrections may be necessary if quantitative images are used in image-based dosimetry or for evaluation of therapy outcomes. This task is particularly challenging if low-energy collimators are used. Our goal was to design a simple method to determine the dead-time correction factor (DTCF) without the need for phantom experiments and complex calculations. METHODS: Planar and SPECT/CT scans of a water phantom containing a 70 ml bottle filled with lutetium-177 (Lu) were acquired over 60 days. Two small Lu markers were used in all scans. The DTCF based on the ratio of observed to true count rates measured over the entire spectrum and using photopeak primary photons only was estimated for phantom (DT present) and marker (no DT) scans. In addition, variations in counts in SPECT projections (potentially caused by varying bremsstrahlung and scatter) were investigated. RESULTS: For count rates that were about two-fold higher than typically seen in post-therapy Lu scans, the maximum DTCF reached a level of about 17%. The DTCF values determined directly from the phantom experiments using the total energy spectrum and photopeak counts only were equal to 13 and 16%, respectively. They were closely matched by those from the proposed marker-based method, which uses only two energy windows and measures photopeak primary photons (15-17%). CONCLUSION: A simple, marker-based method allowing for determination of the DTCF in high-activity Lu imaging studies has been proposed and validated using phantom experiments.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.347
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207