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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
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 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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