MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612019296 · doi:10.23750/abm.v88i1.5285

Quality control on radiochemical purity in Technetium-99m radiopharmaceuticals labelling: three years of experience on 2280 procedures.

2017· article· en· W2612019296 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Claudio Maioli, Giovanni Luciniani, A. Strinchini, Luca Tagliabue, Angelo Del Sole

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation - Québec
KeywordsQuality assuranceNuclear medicineLabellingMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: the purpose of this study was to offer an example of evaluations of the ISO9001 certified internal quality assurance (QA) system of 99mTc-radiopharmaceutical preparations and quality control in vivo use, using industrial kits and generators in order to identify possible sources of errors in the procedures labeling and quality control procedures. METHODS: The study was performed at a single institution over a period of three years (July 1st, 2011 - July 1st, 2014), and included a total of 2280 radiopharmaceutical preparations prepared by four different technologists. All the radiopharmaceutical preparations and quality controls were performed according to each SPC provided by the manufacturer. The radiopharmaceutical preparations were the following (trade names are reported in brackets): 99mTc-albumin colloid [Nanocoll] (n=349), 99mTc-oxidronate [Technescan®hdp] (n=701), 99mTc-exametazime [Ceretec] (n=169), 99mTc-sestamibi [Cardiolite] (n=92), 99mTc-albumin aggregated [Technescan®lyomaa] (n=140), 99mTc-tetrofosmin [Myoview]) (n=567), 99mTc-diethylene triamine pentacetic acid [Technescan®dtpa] (n=254), and 99mTc-dimercapto succinic acid [Renocis®] (n=8). Data were analyzed to determine the number and type of radiopharmaceutical labelling failure and to derive the sources of these failures to define corrective actions and optimize the quality assurance program. RESULTS: A total of 2280 procedures were performed and recorded. Following the quality control procedure six out of the 2280 preparations (0.26%) were non-conforming for clinical use with the RCP limits indicated in the SPC. Five of these were due to gross technical errors in measurements and manual procedures and were immediately repeated, returning within the limits of acceptability. The sixth failure was due to short incubation time, though compliant with the manufacturer's instructions. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the quality of the final product depends on a controlled production system based on the implementation of specific standard operating procedures (ISO9001, SOP) for each radiopharmaceutical production, according to strict adherence to the SPC of each radiopharmaceutical. Based on these conclusions, in our opinion every quality control suggesting a possible error in the synthesis procedure recommended in the SPC should be immediately reported to the manufacturer, for a revision of the SPC, as well as to the regulatory agencies for an alert. This strategy may in fact allow the continuous improvement of the labelling procedures and therefore the optimization of the quality control procedures frequency to ensure both patients safety and a more rational management of resources for economic sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207