MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043847820 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000001249

Validation protocol for current good manufacturing practices production of [15O]water for hybrid PET/MR studies

2020· article· en· W3043847820 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Cockburn, Jeffrey Corsaut, Michael S. Kovacs, Keith St. Lawrence, Justin W. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Production (economics)Current (fluid)MedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceEngineeringPathologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Oxygen-15 (O; t½ = 122.4 s) has been used for nuclear imaging experiments since the beginning of the field. With the advent of simultaneous hybrid PET/MR technology, [O]water has seen a resurgence and remains the gold standard method for quantitative blood flow studies. The short half-life presents a nontrivial challenge to applying current good manufacturing practices production methods to maintain patient safety. METHODS: A two-vial production method was devised to ensure adequate mixing of [O]water vapour into buffered isotonic saline. For production validation, six batches of [O]water were prepared: sterility, quality control testing and four patient doses. The final dose also underwent quality tested. Routine quality control testing included the following: radiochemical identity and purity, radionuclidic identity and purity, appearance, pH, pyrogenicity, and filter integrity. Sterility was retrospectively confirmed. For validation, breakthrough Pt concentration was also measured. RESULTS: Consistent yields of 10-12 GBq (270-325 mCi) were obtained 3 min after bombardment. Overall, 26 [O]water batches underwent quality control testing under this protocol and all met or exceeded release specifications for clinical use. CONCLUSION: The multiple batch protocol proved to be a safe and effective means for producing [O]water. Furthermore, this protocol could be readily adapted by any facility attempting to produce [O]water for clinical studies. Compared with previous attempts at our site, the protocol outlined here was more consistent and reliable, improved production workflow and led to more available radioactivity for participant injection and QC testing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207