Accuracy of Rhenium-188 SPECT/CT activity quantification for applications in radionuclide therapy using clinical reconstruction methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The main applications of 188 Re in radionuclide therapies include trans-arterial liver radioembolization and palliation of painful bone-metastases. In order to optimize 188 Re therapies, the accurate determination of radiation dose delivered to tumors and organs at risk is required. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) can be used to perform such dosimetry calculations. However, the accuracy of dosimetry estimates strongly depends on the accuracy of activity quantification in 188 Re images. In this study, we performed a series of phantom experiments aiming to investigate the accuracy of activity quantification for 188 Re SPECT using high-energy and medium-energy collimators. Objects of different shapes and sizes were scanned in Air, non-radioactive water (Cold-water) and water with activity (Hot-water). The ordered subset expectation maximization algorithm with clinically available corrections (CT-based attenuation, triple-energy window (TEW) scatter and resolution recovery was used). For high activities, the dead-time corrections were applied. The accuracy of activity quantification was evaluated using the ratio of the reconstructed activity in each object to this object’s true activity. Each object’s activity was determined with three segmentation methods: a 1% fixed threshold (for cold background), a 40% fixed threshold and a CT-based segmentation. Additionally, the activity recovered in the entire phantom, as well as the average activity concentration of the phantom background were compared to their true values. Finally, Monte-Carlo simulations of a commercial γ -camera were performed to investigate the accuracy of the TEW method. Good quantification accuracy (errors <10%) was achieved for the entire phantom, the hot-background activity concentration and for objects in cold background segmented with a 1% threshold. However, the accuracy of activity quantification for objects segmented with 40% threshold or CT-based methods decreased (errors >15%), mostly due to partial-volume effects. The Monte-Carlo simulations confirmed that TEW-scatter correction applied to 188 Re, although practical, yields only approximate estimates of the true scatter.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".