Initial Experience With Simultaneous 18F-FDG PET/MRI in the Evaluation of Cardiac Sarcoidosis and Myocarditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare combined PET/MRI with PET/CT and cardiac MRI in the evaluation of cardiac sarcoidosis and myocarditis. METHODS: Ten patients (4 men and 6 women; 56.1 ± 9.6 years old) were prospectively enrolled for evaluation of suspected cardiac sarcoidosis or myocarditis. Written informed consent was obtained. Following administration of 9.9 ± 0.9 mCi F-FDG, patients underwent standard cardiac PET/CT followed by combined PET/MRI using a simultaneous 3-T scanner. Cardiac MRI sequences included ECG-triggered cine SSFP, T2-weighted, and late gadolinium-enhanced imaging. Myocardial involvement was assessed with separate analysis of combined PET/MRI, PET/CT, and cardiac MRI data using dedicated postprocessing software. Estimates of radiation dose were derived from the applied doses of F-FDG and CT protocol parameters. RESULTS: Imaging was acquired with a delay from F-FDG injection of 90.2 ± 27.4 minutes for PET/CT and 207.7 ± 40.3 minutes for PET/MRI. Total scan time for PET/MRI was significantly longer than for PET/CT (81.4 ± 14.8 vs 12.0 minutes, P < 0.001). Total effective radiation dose was significantly lower for PET/MRI compared with PET/CT (6.9 ± 0.6 vs 8.2 ± 1.1 mSv, P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of positive cases identified between combined PET/MRI (n = 10 [100%]), PET/CT (n = 6 [60%]), and cardiac MRI (n = 8 [80%]), P = 0.091. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous cardiac PET/MRI is feasible in the evaluation of cardiac sarcoidosis and myocarditis achieving diagnostic image quality.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".