MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Shortage of Technetium-99m and Possible Solutions

2020· article· en· W3034165467 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas J. Ruth

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageAtomic energySubsidyProduction (economics)Agency (philosophy)BusinessNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following a major shortage of 99 Mo in the 2009–2010 period, concern grew that the aging reactor production facilities needed to be replaced. Most producers were using highly enriched 235 U (HEU) as the target material. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Atomic Energy Agency sought to remedy these issues by removing HEU from medical isotope production and implementing full cost recovery to enable new production entities to compete with the existing multipurpose reactor facilities, which were heavily subsidized by their respective governments. This review examines the various approaches to producing 99 Mo and/or 99m Tc with a critical eye toward their potential success in ( a) producing the medical isotopes and ( b) being able to successfully enter and compete in the market. Because many of the new approaches are adapting existing technologies for commercial businesses, some of the details are of a proprietary nature and not available for in-depth technical review.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Nuclear and Particle ScienceSame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207