The diagnostic value of 124I-PET in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the clinical diagnostic value of iodine-124 (124I)-positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with advanced differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) and to compare the 124I-PET imaging results with the 131I whole-body scan (WBS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with histologically proven advanced DTC (including T4, extra-nodal tumour growth, or distant metastases) underwent diagnostic 131I-WBS, 124I-PET scan, and post-treatment 131I-WBS 4 months after ablation. The findings on the 124I-PET were compared with the findings on the diagnostic and post-therapeutic 131I-WBS and were also correlated with radiologic and/or cytological investigations. RESULTS: 124 I-PET vs diagnostic 131 I-WBS. Eleven patients showed uptake on the 124I-PET. Only 3 of these 11 patients also showed uptake on the diagnostic 131I scan, but the uptake was more clearly visible and the abnormalities were more extensive on the 124I-PET. 124 I-PET vs post-treatment 131 I-WBS. Eleven patients showed uptake on the 124I-PET, which was also visible on the post-treatment scan in nine patients; in the other two patients, no uptake was observed on the post-treatment scan and no anatomical localisation could be confirmed. Two patients showed only uptake on the post-treatment scan without uptake on the 124I-PET: in one, the uptake was confirmed by MRI, and in the other, no anatomical localisation was found. In seven patients, no uptake was observed on both the scans. CONCLUSION: 124I-PET proved to be a superior diagnostic tool as compared to low-dose diagnostic 131I scans and adequately predicted findings on subsequent high-dose post-treatment 131I scans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".