Improved precision of SPECT myocardial blood flow using a net tracer retention model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive quantification of absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) provides incremental benefit to relative myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) to diagnose and manage heart disease. MBF can be measured with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) but the uncertainty in the measured values is high. Standardization and optimization of protocols for SPECT MBF measurements will improve the consistency of this technique. One element of the processing protocol is the choice of kinetic model used to analyze the dynamic image series. PURPOSE: This study evaluates if a net tracer retention model (RET) will provide a better fit to the acquired data and greater test-retest precision than a one-compartment model (1CM) for SPECT MBF, with (+MC) and without (-MC) manual motion correction. METHODS: Data from previously acquired rest-stress MBF studies (31 SPECT-PET and 30 SPECT-SPECT) were reprocessed ± MC. Rate constants (K1) were extracted using 1CM and RET, +/-MC, and compared pairwise with standard PET MBF measurements using cross-validation to obtain calibration parameters for converting SPECT rate constants to MBF and to assess the goodness-of-fit of the calibration curves. Precision (coefficient of variation of test re-test relative differences, COV) of flow measurements was computed for 1CM and RET ± MC using data from the repeated SPECT MBF studies. RESULTS: Both the RET model and MC improved the goodness-of-fit of the SPECT MBF calibration curves to PET. All models produced minimal bias compared with PET (mean bias < 0.6%). The SPECT-SPECT MBF COV significantly improved from 34% (1CM+MC) to 28% (RET+MC, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The RET+MC model provides a better calibration of SPECT to PET and blood flow measurements with better precision than the 1CM, without loss of accuracy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".