MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088997143 · doi:10.1109/trpms.2020.3025086

PET Parametric Imaging: Past, Present, and Future

2020· article· en· W3088997143 on OpenAlexafffund
Guobao Wang, Arman Rahmim, Roger N. Gunn

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsParametric statisticsComputer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positron emission tomography (PET) is actively used in a diverse range of applications in oncology, cardiology, and neurology. The use of PET in the clinical setting focuses on static (single time frame) imaging at a specific time-point post radiotracer injection and is typically considered as semi-quantitative; e.g. standardized uptake value (SUV) measures. In contrast, dynamic PET imaging requires increased acquisition times but has the advantage that it measures the full spatiotemporal distribution of a radiotracer and, in combination with tracer kinetic modeling, enables the generation of multiparametric images that more directly quantify underlying biological parameters of interest, such as blood flow, glucose metabolism, and receptor binding. Parametric images have the potential for improved detection and for more accurate and earlier therapeutic response assessment. Parametric imaging with dynamic PET has witnessed extensive research in the past four decades. In this paper, we provide an overview of past and present activities and discuss emerging opportunities in the field of parametric imaging for the future.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations125
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical SciencesSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207