MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901663229 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2017.8532700

Dual Spillover Correction for SPECT Myocardial Blood Flow Measurement

2017· article· en· W2901663229 on OpenAlexaff
R. Glenn Wells, Jennifer M. Renaud, Robert A. deKemp, Terrence D. Ruddy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear medicineBlood flowComputer sciencePhysicsBiomedical engineeringMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurement is possible using stationary cardiac SPECT cameras. Limited spatial resolution and blood vessels in the myocardium produce mixing of the blood and myocardial time-activity curves used for kinetic analysis. Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of correction for both spillover into the myocardium from blood and into the blood from myocardium on the accuracy of SPECT MBF estimation. Images from 31 patients who had dynamic one-day rest-stress myocardial SPECT studies using99mTc-tetrofosmin were retrospectively processed both with attenuation correction (AC) and without (NC), and using a single spillover correction (SSO = blood to myocardium) and a dual spillover correction (DSO). Kl values from kinetic analysis with a 1-tissue compartment model were fit to a Renkin-Crone extraction fraction model (EF=1-exp(-α-β/MBF)) using 50 repeats of 2-fold cross validation to determine the method-specific K1-to-MBFconversion function. True MBF was measured using the clinical standard of PET imaging, with either82Rb or13N-ammonia, in the same patients. The model fit of SPECT K1 to PET MBF was not improved with dual spillover correction. With SSO, the Renkin-Crone model parameters were α=0.140, β =0.282 (AC, R2=0.71) and α = 0.187, β = 0.400 (NC, R2=0.75). With DSO, the parameters were α = 0.110, β = 0.265 (AC, R2=0.63) and α = 0.161, β = 0.352 (NC, R2=0.67). The limits of greement for the global relative MBF difference (SPECT - PET MBF/mean) were similar for DSO and SSO, both with AC ([-0.74 - 0.77] vs [-0.62- 0.64]) and without ([-0.67 - 0.71] vs [-.55 - 0.59]). Dual spillover correction alters the K1-to-MBF conversion function but does not improve the accuracy or precision of SPECT MBF measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→