Comparison of the renal dynamic scan performed with 99mTc-L,L-EC and 99mTc-MAG3 in children with pelviureteric junction obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to compare the renal dynamic scan (RDS) performed with technetium-99-L,L-ethylene dicysteine (Tc-L,L-EC) and technetium-99-mercaptoacetyltriglycine (Tc-MAG3) in children with pelviureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction. A retrospective study was carried out and children with PUJ obstruction who had RDS performed with both Tc-L,L-EC and Tc-MAG3. Children with any intervention in between the two scans or a gap of more than 2 months in between renal scans were excluded. The dose of each radiotracer used was 0.1 mCi/kg (3.7 MBq/kg), with a minimum dose of 1 mCi (37 MBq). RDS was performed using the F+0 protocol. The differential renal function, Tmax, T1/2, drainage pattern, and hepatic uptake of the radiotracer were recorded and compared. A Bland-Altman plot was used to assess agreement between the two radiotracers. Sixteen children were included in the study. A total of 18 obstructed and 14 normal renal units were available to us for study. The values of differential renal function as well as Tmax and T1/2 of the two radiotracers were in agreement. In three obstructed kidneys in which T1/2 on Tc-MAG3 was greater than 20 min, Tc-L,L-EC showed T1/2 values of 13.3 min or less. Tc-L,L-EC showed nonobstructive drainage in three patients who had shown partial obstruction on Tc-MAG3 scan. The hepatic uptake of Tc-L,L-EC was also lower compared with Tc-MAG3. To conclude Tc-L,L-EC is a useful radiotracer for the evaluation of children with PUJ obstruction, with better assessment of drainage and lower hepatic uptake compared with Tc-MAG3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".