Quantifying hypoxia in human cancers using static PET imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compared to FDG, the signal of 18 F-labelled hypoxia-sensitive tracers in tumours is low. This means that in addition to the presence of hypoxic cells, transport properties contribute significantly to the uptake signal in static PET images. This sensitivity to transport must be minimized in order for static PET to provide a reliable standard for hypoxia quantification. A dynamic compartmental model based on a reaction-diffusion formalism was developed to interpret tracer pharmacokinetics and applied to static images of FAZA in twenty patients with pancreatic cancer. We use our model to identify tumour properties—well-perfused without substantial necrosis or partitioning—for which static PET images can reliably quantify hypoxia. Normalizing the measured activity in a tumour voxel by the value in blood leads to a reduction in the sensitivity to variations in ‘inter-corporal’ transport properties—blood volume and clearance rate—as well as imaging study protocols. Normalization thus enhances the correlation between static PET images and the FAZA binding rate K 3 , a quantity which quantifies hypoxia in a biologically significant way. The ratio of FAZA uptake in spinal muscle and blood can vary substantially across patients due to long muscle equilibration times. Normalized static PET images of hypoxia-sensitive tracers can reliably quantify hypoxia for homogeneously well-perfused tumours with minimal tissue partitioning. The ideal normalizing reference tissue is blood, either drawn from the patient before PET scanning or imaged using PET. If blood is not available, uniform, homogeneously well-perfused muscle can be used. For tumours that are not homogeneously well-perfused or for which partitioning is significant, only an analysis of dynamic PET scans can reliably quantify hypoxia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".