MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3185048882

Theory and initial validation of a non-invasive hybrid [15O]O2-PET/MRI approach to obtain image-derived input functions

2021· article· en· W3185048882 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Narciso, Tracy Ssali, Félix W. Wehrli, Keith St. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositron emission tomographyNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingCerebral blood flowPet imagingPartial volumeBlood flowBiomedical engineeringNuclear magnetic resonanceMedicineRadiologyPhysicsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1602 Introduction: The challenges of accurately measuring the image-derived input function (IDIF) in order to avoid invasive arterial sampling for quantitative positron emission tomography (PET) is well recognized [1]. Recent studies focused on imaging the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2) have derived the IDIF from time-activity curves (TACs); however, these techniques are either computationally intensive or require calibration to a measured arterial input function [2,3]. Here, we propose a PET/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) method that uses MRI estimates of whole-brain (WB) cerebral blood flow (CBF) and oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) to scale the IDIF derived from WB [15O]O2-TAC (Fig. 1A). The required MRI measurements can be obtained with the OxFlow sequence [4]. In this study, the theory was validated with animal experiments, which incorporated MRI measurements of WB CBF and OEF. Arterial input functions (AIFs) were measured and PET-only estimates of CMRO2 are available for comparison [5-6]. Methods: [15O]H2O and [15O]O2 PET data were acquired in a hybrid PET/MR scanner (3 T Siemens Biograph mMR), together with simultaneous MRI oximetry (OxFlow), from juvenile pigs (n = 8). Animals were anesthetized with 3% isoflurane and 6 mL/kg/h propofol. Recirculating water was modeled by species-specific parameters [7]. Results: WB-CMRO2 estimates obtained with measured AIF and IDIF (Fig. 2) were 1.81 ± 0.10 and 1.70 ± 0.20 mLO2/100g/min, respectively (ns.). Corresponding WB OEF measurements were 0.31 ± 0.09 and 0.29 ± 0.09 (ns.). Finally, WB-CBV estimated using the IDIFs (average = 3.8 ±0.6 mL/100g) were within the expected normal range. Conclusions: The proposed approach offers a non-invasive alternative to measure CMRO2 by incorporating IDIFs obtained by hybrid PET/MRI. The approach is straightforward as it derives the IDIF directly from the WB PET TAC scaled by the corresponding MRI estimates of OEF and CBF. Furthermore, it avoids partial volume errors typically encountered when deriving the IDIF from region-of-interest analysis of the feeding arteries. Further studies are required to fully validate this approach in a PET/MR scanner on healthy volunteers. References: [1] Zanotti-Fregonara et al. (2011-JCBFM) [2] Su et al. (2017-JCBFM) [3] Kudomi et al. (2018-JCBFM) [4] Wehrli et al. (2014- Acad Radiol) [5] Kudomi et al. (2005-JCBFM) [6] Kudomi et al. (2013-JCBFM) [7] Kudomi et al. (2009-JCBFM) Figure 1. [15O]O2-IDIF (Ao(t) , Eq. 1) obtained by combining the WB TAC from [15O]O2-PET dynamic image with MRI measurements of WB CBF and OEF. WB cerebral blood volume (CBV) was estimated by the Grubb relationship. Eq. 1 is similar to the one obtained by Kudomi et al. [3], but with two terms in the Taylor series expansion. Figure 2. (A) Measured AIFs and (B) IDIFs (solid line; ± one standard deviation—dashed lines.) IDIFs internal dispersion was included to obtain comparable curves (dispersion constant of 20 s was used).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→