MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120799199 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000001363

Physiologic prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted 18F-DCFPyL uptake in the epididymis head newly appreciated on digital PET/CT

2020· article· en· W3120799199 on OpenAlexaff
Peter George Maliha, Julia Singerman, Gad Abikhzer, Stephan Probst

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpididymisGlutamate carboxypeptidase IIAntigenProstateMedicineInternal medicineImmunologyAndrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The published physiological distribution of prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET ligands includes normal uptake in the lacrimal glands, salivary glands, bowel, liver, spleen, kidneys and parasympathetic ganglia but does not include the epididymis. METHODS: Retrospective review of 134 PSMA-targeted 2-(3-(1-carboxy-5-[(6-[18F]fluoropyridine-3-carbonyl)-amino]-pentyl)-ureido)-pentanedioic acid (18F-DCFPyL) PET/CT scans performed on a latest generation digital scanner for radiotracer uptake in the epididymal head region was correlated with multiple clinical and laboratory factors. RESULTS: Physiologic PSMA radiotracer uptake in the epididymal head region was present in 57% of all subjects, including 29% in those with a total serum testosterone ≤ 5 nmol/L and 65% of patients with serum testosterone > 5 nmol/L, odds ratio of 0.21 (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Epididymal head uptake is physiologic and very common on digital PSMA PET/CT and is more frequent in patients with higher serum testosterone levels. The enhanced small structure detection of digital PET/CT is the most likely explanation for the novel visualization of this normal variant.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207