FLT-PET for the Assessment of Systemic Sarcoidosis Including Cardiac and Cns Involvement: a Prospective Study With Comparison to FDG-PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND:FDG’s biodistribution limits the evaluation of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and neurosarcoidosis (NS). While protocols for cardiac suppression exist, they can be inconvenient for patients and lead to incomplete cardiac suppression in many cases. Furthermore, FDG PET is limited in the detection of neurosarcoidosis due to an inability to suppress high level of physiological uptake within the brain. FLT has been shown to accumulate in sarcoidosis lesions and this tracer lacks significant physiological myocardial and brain uptake, suggesting that this tracer may be useful for the assessment of sarcoidosis, including CS and NS, without the need for patient preparation. This prospective pilot study examined the performance of FLT vs FDG PET for systemic sarcoidosis, including cardiac and neural involvement.MATERIALS AND METHODS:14 subjects with sarcoidosis were prospectively recruited and imaged with FDG- and FLT-PET. Two blinded, experienced readers independently reviewed the FLT-PET and FDG-PET images. Lesion distribution was compared between FLT and FDG. Agreement between FLT- and FDG-PET was determined using Cohen’s kappa and the intra-class correlation coefficient. Inter-observer variability of FLT and FDG-PET was assessed. RESULTS:12 subjects had CS as per Heart Rhythm Society criteria and 1 had NS. FLT-PET was positive in 12 (86%), and FDG-PET in 11 (79%), with cardiac uptake present in 6 (50%) and 7 (58%) of subjects with CS, respectively. The subject with NS demonstrated uptake on both FLT and FDG-PET, with more lesions on FLT. There were no significant differences in the anatomical distribution of lesions between FLT and FDG. SUVs were significantly (p<0.001) higher for FDG than FLT (5.8 (3.0) vs 2.3 (1.1), respectively), but not (p=0.90) after adjusting for blood pool activity (2.8 (1.4) vs 2.8 (1.1), respectively). Agreement between FLT- and FDG-PET was good to excellent for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, lung involvement, CS, and NS (κ = 0.76, 0.69, 0.86, and 1.0, respectively). Inter-observer agreement for FLT was excellent for diagnosing sarcoidosis, CS and NS (κ = 0.81, 0.85, and 1.0, respectively) and comparable to that of FDG.CONCLUSIONS:FLT-PET may be useful for the assessment of systemic sarcoidosis, as well as cardiac and neural involvement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".