MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246033370 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/jez148.030

P302Routine PET imaging of myocardial flow reserve using simple activity ratios - internal validation using Rb-82-chloride and N-13-ammonia

2019· article· en· W4246033370 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kai Yi Wu, Daniel Juneau, Nicole Kaps, Jean‐Marc Renaud, Terrence D. Ruddy, R S Beanlands, Rob de Kemp

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlorideAmmoniaSimple (philosophy)ChemistryPet imagingFlow (mathematics)Analytical Chemistry (journal)Nuclear medicineChromatographyMechanicsPhysicsMedicineBiochemistryPositron emission tomographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Funding Acknowledgements: Ontario Research Fund (ORF-RE07-021) Background: Myocardial flow reserve (MFR) measurement is a powerful tool that provides incremental diagnostic and prognostic information, but typically requires a dynamic PET acquisition protocol and specialized software and processing tools which have not been standardized across imaging centres. Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the application of a simplified model for the routine estimation of MFR using only the stress/rest myocardial activity ratio (MAR) in patients undergoing rest-stress perfusion imaging using N-13-ammonia (NH3) or Rb-82-chloride (RB) PET. Methods: Rest and dipyridamole stress dynamic PET imaging was performed in consecutive patients using RB or NH3 (n = 250 each). The gold-standard reference MFR was quantified using a standard one-tissue compartment model. Stress/rest myocardial activity ratio (MAR) was calculated using the LV-mean activity from 2 to 6 minutes post injection. Simplified estimates of MFR were calculated using an inverse power function as MFR" = MAR^β ÷ α. The correlation between MFR" and MFR values was assessed using Spearman correlation. Ten-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed MFR" values using receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: For NH3, there was good correlation between the simplified MFR" and standard MFR values (R = 0.63) with no bias in the MFR" values. The overall diagnostic performance of MFR" was very good with ROC area-under-the-curve (AUC)=83.2 ± 1.2%. Negative predictive value of MFR"<2 was 82% to identify impaired MFR < 2, with 73%sensitivity, 80% specificity and 77% accuracy. For RB, there was also good correlation between MFR" and MFR values (R = 0.73) with no bias in the MFR" values. The overall diagnostic performance of MFR" was excellent for RB, with AUC = 90.4 ± 0.7%. The corresponding negative predictive of MFR"<2 was 90% to identify impaired MFR < 2, with 78% sensitivity, 87% specificity and 85% accuracy. Conclusion: MFR was estimated with very good accuracy using RB and NH3 according a highly simplified method that relies only on measurement of stress/rest myocardial activity ratios following tracer injection. This novel approach does not require dynamic imaging or tracer kinetic modeling of any kind, and can be easily standardized across PET imaging centres. Abstract P302 Figure. MAR PET MFR

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207