Reproducibility of Lobar Perfusion and Ventilation Quantification Using SPECT/CT Segmentation Software in Lung Cancer Patients
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
Planar perfusion scintigraphy with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-labeled macroaggregated albumin is often used for pretherapy quantification of regional lung perfusion in lung cancer patients, particularly those with poor respiratory function. However, subdividing lung parenchyma into rectangular regions of interest, as done on planar images, is a poor reflection of true lobar anatomy. New tridimensional methods using SPECT and SPECT/CT have been introduced, including semiautomatic lung segmentation software. The present study evaluated inter- and intraobserver agreement on quantification using SPECT/CT software and compared the results for regional lung contribution obtained with SPECT/CT and planar scintigraphy. <b>Methods:</b> Thirty lung cancer patients underwent ventilation–perfusion scintigraphy with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-macroaggregated albumin and <sup>99m</sup>Tc-Technegas. The regional lung contribution to perfusion and ventilation was measured on both planar scintigraphy and SPECT/CT using semiautomatic lung segmentation software by 2 observers. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement for the SPECT/CT software was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland–Altman plots, and absolute differences in measurements. Measurements from planar and tridimensional methods were compared using the paired-sample <i>t</i> test and mean absolute differences. <b>Results:</b> Intraclass correlation coefficients were in the excellent range (above 0.9) for both interobserver and intraobserver agreement using the SPECT/CT software. Bland–Altman analyses showed very narrow limits of agreement. Absolute differences were below 2.0% in 96% of both interobserver and intraobserver measurements. There was a statistically significant difference between planar and SPECT/CT methods (<i>P</i> < 0.001) for quantification of perfusion and ventilation for all right lung lobes, with a maximal mean absolute difference of 20.7% for the right middle lobe. There was no statistically significant difference in quantification of perfusion and ventilation for the left lung lobes using either method; however, absolute differences reached 12.0%. The total right and left lung contributions were similar for the two methods, with a mean difference of 1.2% for perfusion and 2.0% for ventilation. <b>Conclusion:</b> Quantification of regional lung perfusion and ventilation using SPECT/CT-based lung segmentation software is highly reproducible. This tridimensional method yields statistically significant differences in measurements for right lung lobes when compared with planar scintigraphy. We recommend that SPECT/CT-based quantification be used for all lung cancer patients undergoing pretherapy evaluation of regional lung function.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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