Rubidium-82 generator yield and efficiency for PET perfusion imaging: Comparison of two clinical systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strontium-82/Rubidium-82 ( 82 Sr/ 82 Rb) generators are used widely for positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of myocardial perfusion. In this study, the 82 Rb isotope yield and production efficiency of two FDA-approved 82 Sr/ 82 Rb generators were compared. N = 515 sequential daily quality assurance (QA) reports from 9 CardioGen-82 ® and 9 RUBY-FILL ® generators were reviewed over a period of 2 years. A series of test elutions was performed at different flow-rates on the RUBY-FILL ® system to determine an empirical correction-factor used to convert CardioGen-82 ® daily QA values of 82 Rb activity (dose-calibrator ‘maximum’ of 50 mL elution at 50 mL·min −1 ) to RUBY-FILL ® equivalent values (integrated ‘total’ of 35 mL elution at 20 mL·min −1 ). The generator yield ( 82 Rb) and production efficiency ( 82 Rb yield/ 82 Sr parent activity) were measured and compared after this conversion to a common scale. At the start of clinical use, the system reported 82 Rb activity from daily QA was lower for CardioGen-82 ® vs RUBY-FILL ® (2.3 ± 0.2 vs 3.0 ± 0.2 GBq, P < 0.001) despite having similar 82 Sr activity. Dose-calibrator ‘maximum’ (CardioGen-82 ® ) values were found to under-estimate the integrated ‘total’ (RUBY-FILL ® ) activity by ~ 24% at 50 mL·min −1 . When these data were used to convert the CardioGen-82 values to a common measurement scale (integrated total activity) the CardioGen-82 ® efficiency remained slightly lower than the RUBY-FILL ® system on average (88 ± 4% vs 95 ± 4%, P < 0.001). The efficiency of 82 Rb production improved for both systems over the respective periods of clinical use. 82 Rb generator yield was significantly under-estimated using the CardioGen-82 ® vs RUBY-FILL ® daily QA procedure. When generator yield was expressed as the integrated total activity for both systems, the estimated 82 Rb production efficiency of the CardioGen-82 ® system was ~ 7% lower than RUBY-FILL ® over the full period of clinical use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".