MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925866291 · doi:10.2460/ajvr.80.4.416

Tikhonov gamma variate adaptive regularization applied to technetium Tc 99m diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid plasma clearance, compared with three other methods, for measuring glomerular filtration rate in cats

2019· article· en· W2925866291 on OpenAlexaff
Elisabeth Snead, Jewel E. Milo, Carling A. McCrea, James E. Montgomery, Cindy Feng, Michal J. Wesolowski, Surajith N. Wanasundara, Carl A. Wesolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Veterinary Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandRoyal University HospitalShared HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasma clearanceRenal functionWilcoxon signed-rank testChemistryIohexolDiethylenetriamineCATSTikhonov regularizationNuclear medicineUrologyMedicineInternal medicineMann–Whitney U testMathematicsPharmacokineticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OBJECTIVE To evaluate agreement of 4 methods (Tikhonov gamma variate adaptive regularization of plasma concentration-time curve fitting applied to technetium Tc 99m diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid [ 99m Tc-DTPA] plasma clearance [Tk-GV], plasma clearance of exogenous creatinine [CrCL], Gates gamma camera-based measurement method with 99m Tc-DTPA renal clearance and dynamic scintigraphy [GTS], and iohexol renal clearance assessed with dynamic CT with Patlak plotting [CT-Pp]) for measuring glomerular filtration rates (GFR) in healthy cats. ANIMALS 7 healthy, laboratory-raised cats. PROCEDURES Each method for measuring GFR was performed twice in 7 cats at 24-day intervals. The Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test was used to compare the results obtained from the 14 studies for each method. Results from the 4 methods were assessed for agreement and correlation. RESULTS The median GFR values were 2.75, 2.83, 3.14, and 4.26 mL/min/kg, for Tk-GV, CT-Pp, plasma CrCL, and GTS, respectively. Analysis with Wilcoxon signed-rank sum tests identified significant pairwise differences between results obtained with the Tk-GV versus the plasma CrCL method, the Tk-GV versus the GTS method, and the plasma CrCL versus the GTS method. The least variable method was Tk-GV, with an SD of 1.27 (mL/min/kg). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Findings indicated that Tk-GV yielded GFR measurements comparable with those obtained with CT-Pp, plasma CrCL, and GTS; however, the Tk-GV method yielded the tightest range of results among the methods evaluated.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Veterinary ResearchSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207