High-pitch Helical Dual-source Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare qualitative and quantitative image parameters of dual-source high-pitch helical computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in breath-holding (BH) versus free-breathing (FB) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine consented patients (61 female individuals; mean age±SD, 49±18.7 y) were randomized into BH (n=45) versus FB (n=54) high-pitch helical CTPA. Patient characteristics and CTPA radiation doses were analyzed. Two readers assessed for pulmonary embolism (PE), transient interruption of contrast, and respiratory and cardiac motion. The readers used a subjective 3-point scale to rate the pulmonary artery opacification and lung parenchymal appearance. A single reader assessed mean pulmonary artery signal intensity, noise, contrast, signal to noise ratio, and contrast to noise ratio. RESULTS: PE was diagnosed in 16% BH and 19% FB patients. CTPAs of both groups were of excellent or acceptable quality for PE evaluation and of similar mean radiation doses (1.3 mSv). Transient interruption of contrast was seen in 5/45 (11%) BH and 5/54 (9%) FB patients (not statistically significant, P=0.54). No statistically significant difference was noted in cardiac, diaphragmatic, and lung parenchymal motion. Lung parenchymal assessment was excellent in all cases, except for 5/54 (9%) motion-affected FB cases with acceptable quality (statistically significant, P=0.03). No CTPA was considered nondiagnostic by any of the readers. No objective image quality differences were noted between both groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: High-pitch helical CTPA acquired during BH or in FB yields comparable image quality for the diagnosis of PE and lung pathology, with low radiation exposure. Only a modest increase in lung parenchymal artifacts is encountered in FB high-pitch helical CTPA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it