Further in vivo characterization of [<sup>11</sup>C]‐(+)‐PHNO uptake into a retina‐like region of interest in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The neurotransmitter dopamine is present in the retina and is involved in several modulatory functions. Unlike in rodents, dopamine D 3 receptors are expressed in the retina of humans. Recently, uptake of the D 3 receptor‐preferring radiotracer [ 11 C]‐(+)‐PHNO has been observed in a retina‐like region of interest (ROI) in humans. Here, we attempted to quantify [ 11 C]‐(+)‐PHNO uptake into this ROI using an independent sample, employing an extended scan acquisition time (120 min) and arterial kinetic modeling. Data from 14 healthy controls were analyzed (Mean Age: 38.41 ± 9.55, 3 female), 8 of which provided arterial line input function data (Mean Age: 41.07 ± 7.82, 3 female). Using Ichise's multilinear analysis (MA1) method, it was possible to quantify the volume of distribution ( V T ) of [ 11 C]‐(+)‐PHNO in this retina‐like region (Mean V T = 13.56 ± 3.52; Mean χ 2 = 2.08 ± 2.20). Notably, the shape of the time activity curve resembled closely that of the globus pallidus. Moreover, the V T values in the retina correlated well with binding potential ( BP ND ) values calculated using the simplified reference tissue model (Mean BP ND = 2.11 ± .94; Mean χ 2 = 5.76 ± 2.56), employing the cerebellum as the reference region ( r = .76, r 2 = .58). In summary, we provide evidence that the in vivo uptake of [ 11 C]‐(+)‐PHNO into a retina‐like ROI in humans can be quantified using both arterial blood sampling ( V T ) and simplified reference tissue methods ( BP ND ).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".