MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419178735 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000405

Accurate and precise plasma clearance measurement using four 99mTc-DTPA plasma samples over 4 h

2015· article· en· W2419178735 on OpenAlexaff
Surajith N. Wanasundara, Michal J. Wesolowski, Mark C. Barnfield, M. L. Waller, Anthony W. Murray, Maria Burniston, Paul Babyn, Carl A. Wesolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasma clearanceRenal functionChemistryTikhonov regularizationNuclear medicineAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyMathematicsPharmacokineticsMedicineInternal medicineMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Glomerular filtration rate can be measured as the plasma clearance (CL) of a glomerular filtration rate marker despite body fluid disturbances using numerous, prolonged time samples. We desire a simplified technique without compromised accuracy and precision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared CL values derived from two plasma concentration curve area methods - (a) biexponential fitting [CL (E2)] and (b) Tikhonov adaptively regularized gamma variate fitting [CL (Tk-GV)] - for 4 versus 8 h time samplings from 412 Tc-DTPA studies in 142 patients, mostly paediatric patients, with suspected fluid disturbances. RESULTS: CL (Tk-GV) from four samples/4 h and from nine samples/8 h, both accurately and precisely agreed with the standard, which was taken to be nine samples/8 h CL from (noncompartmental) numerical integration [CL (NI)]. The E2 method, four samples/4 h, and nine samples/8 h median CL values significantly overestimated the CL (NI) values by 4.9 and 3.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with the standard, CL (E2) from four samples/4 h and from nine samples/8 h proved to be the most inaccurate and imprecise method examined, and can be replaced by better methods for calculating CL. The CL (Tk-GV) can be used to reduce sampling time in half from 8 to 4 h and from nine to four samples for a precise and accurate, yet more easily tolerated and simplified test.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.079 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207