MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105326787 · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00338-3

An international multi-center investigation on the accuracy of radionuclide calibrators in nuclear medicine theragnostics

2020· article· en· W3105326787 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadioactive Decay and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaMaastricht Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversiteit Maastricht
KeywordsRadionuclideNuclear medicineMedicineMedical physicsCenter (category theory)ChemistryNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Personalized molecular radiotherapy based on theragnostics requires accurate quantification of the amount of radiopharmaceutical activity administered to patients both in diagnostic and therapeutic applications. This international multi-center study aims to investigate the clinical measurement accuracy of radionuclide calibrators for 7 radionuclides used in theragnostics: 99m Tc, 111 In, 123 I, 124 I, 131 I, 177 Lu, and 90 Y. Methods In total, 32 radionuclide calibrators from 8 hospitals located in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany were tested. For each radionuclide, a set of four samples comprising two clinical containers (10-mL glass vial and 3-mL syringe) with two filling volumes were measured. The reference value of each sample was determined by two certified radioactivity calibration centers (SCK CEN and JRC) using two secondary standard ionization chambers. The deviation in measured activity with respect to the reference value was determined for each radionuclide and each measurement geometry. In addition, the combined systematic deviation of activity measurements in a theragnostic setting was evaluated for 5 clinically relevant theragnostic pairs: 131 I/ 123 I, 131 I/ 124 I, 177 Lu/ 111 In, 90 Y/ 99m Tc, and 90 Y/ 111 In. Results For 99m Tc, 131 I, and 177 Lu, a small minority of measurements were not within ± 5% range from the reference activity (percentage of measurements not within range: 99m Tc, 6%; 131 I, 14%; 177 Lu, 24%) and almost none were outside ± 10% range. However, for 111 In, 123 I, 124 I, and 90 Y, more than half of all measurements were not accurate within ± 5% range ( 111 In, 51%; 123 I, 83%; 124 I, 63%; 90 Y, 61%) and not all were within ± 10% margin ( 111 In, 22%; 123 I, 35%; 124 I, 15%; 90 Y, 25%). A large variability in measurement accuracy was observed between radionuclide calibrator systems, type of sample container (vial vs syringe), and source-geometry calibration/correction settings used. Consequently, we observed large combined deviations (percentage deviation > ± 10%) for the investigated theragnostic pairs, in particular for 90 Y/ 111 In, 131 I/ 123 I, and 90 Y/ 99m Tc. Conclusions Our study shows that substantial over- or underestimation of therapeutic patient doses is likely to occur in a theragnostic setting due to errors in the assessment of radioactivity with radionuclide calibrators. These findings underline the importance of thorough validation of radionuclide calibrator systems for each clinically relevant radionuclide and sample geometry.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.217 · 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