Validation of regional myocardial blood flow quantification using three-dimensional PET with rubidium-82: repeatability and comparison with two-dimensional PET data acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Three-dimensional (3D) data acquisition is now standard on PET/computed tomography scanners. The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of myocardial blood flow (MBF) estimation with rubidium-82 (Rb) 3D PET and to validate regional MBF measurements by comparison with two-dimensional (2D) PET. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen healthy individuals (31.6 ± 11.4 years old) were enrolled for the evaluation of the short-term repeatability of rest 3D MBF quantification. Another 19 healthy individuals (35.3 ± 12.6 years old) underwent rest and pharmacological stress PET using 2D and 3D data acquisition within a 1-month interval. The injected dose was 1500 MBq for 2D and 555 MBq for 3D PET acquisition. RESULTS: MBF at rest showed good repeatability [whole left ventricular MBF; 0.54 ± 0.13 vs. 0.52 ± 0.13 mL/min/g, P = 0.98]. Rest MBF, stress MBF, and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were not significantly different between 3D and 2D data acquisition. 3D MBF correlated well with 2D MBF over a wide flow range for both whole left ventricular (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001) and regional values (r = 0.61, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: MBF measured with 3D PET showed very good test-retest repeatability. Whole left ventricular and regional MBF measurements obtained using lower Rb-dose 3D PET were highly correlated over a wide range with those from 2D PET. Therefore, MBF with 3D PET can be applied using a lower Rb dosage in clinical settings with reduced radiation exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".