Multi-isotope SPECT imaging of the<sup>225</sup>Ac decay chain: feasibility studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective use of the [Formula: see text] decay chain in targeted internal radioimmunotherapy requires the retention of both [Formula: see text] and progeny isotopes at the target site. Imaging-based pharmacokinetic tests of these pharmaceuticals must therefore separately yet simultaneously image multiple isotopes that may not be colocalized despite being part of the same decay chain. This work presents feasibility studies demonstrating the ability of a microSPECT/CT scanner equipped with a high energy collimator to simultaneously image two components of the [Formula: see text] decay chain: [Formula: see text] (218 keV) and [Formula: see text] (440 keV). Image quality phantoms were used to assess the performance of two collimators for simultaneous [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] imaging in terms of contrast and noise. A hotrod resolution phantom containing clusters of thin rods with diameters ranging between 0.85 and 1.70 mm was used to assess resolution. To demonstrate ability to simultaneously image dynamic [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] activity distributions, a phantom containing a [Formula: see text] generator from [Formula: see text] was imaged. These tests were performed with two collimators, a high-energy ultra-high resolution (HEUHR) collimator and an ultra-high sensitivity (UHS) collimator. Values consistent with activity concentrations determined independently via gamma spectroscopy were observed in high activity regions of the images. In hotrod phantom images, the HEUHR collimator resolved all rods for both [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] images. With the UHS collimator, no rods were resolvable in [Formula: see text] images and only rods ⩾1.3 mm were resolved in [Formula: see text] images. After eluting the [Formula: see text] generator, images accurately visualized the reestablishment of transient equilibrium of the [Formula: see text] decay chain. The feasibility of evaluating the pharmacokinetics of the [Formula: see text] decay chain in vivo has been demonstrated. This presented method requires the use of a high-performance high-energy collimator.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".