Exponential dosing to standardize myocardial perfusion image quality with rubidium-82 PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
82 Rb PET is commonly performed using the same injected activity in all patients, resulting in lower image quality in larger patients. This study compared 82 Rb dosing with exponential vs proportional functions of body weight on the standardization of myocardial perfusion image (MPI) quality. Two sequential cohorts of N = 60 patients were matched by patient weight. Rest and dipyridamole stress 82 Rb PET was performed using 0.1 MBq·kg −2 exponential and 9 MBq·kg −1 proportional dosing. MPI scans were compared qualitatively with visual image quality scoring (IQS) and quantitatively using the myocardium-to-blood contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and blood background signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as a function of body weight. Average (min–max) patient body weight was 81 ± 18 kg (46–137 kg). Proportional dosing resulted in decreasing CNR, SNR, and visual IQS with increasing body weight ( P < 0.05). Exponential dosing eliminated the weight-dependent decreases in these image quality metrics that were observed in the proportional dosing group. 82 Rb PET dosing as an exponential (squared) function of body weight produced consistent stress perfusion image quality over a wide range of patient weights. Dramatically lower doses can be used in lighter patients, with the equivalent population dose shifted toward the heavier patients to standardize diagnostic image quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".