Comparison of Manual and Semiautomatic Volume of Interest Drawing For the Analysis of Spinal Cord Myelin Pet Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to compare the manual and semiautomatic method for volume of interest (VOI) drawing of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) images with Carbon-11 labeled Pittsburgh Compound B ([ 11 C]PIB) of Cervical Spinal Cord (SC).Studies using PET images of spinal cord are scarce, probably, due to the difficulty associated with reduced dimensions and respiratory movement of this region, therefore, more suitable method of drawing the VOIs in this region still needs further evaluation.[ 11 C]PIB PET images and T1-weighted MRI were acquired from 10 healthy volunteers in a simultaneous hybrid PET/MR system.The VOIs were placed using: 1) manually, using iso-contour tool, and 2) semi-automatically, using ellipse and rectangle shape tool, slice by slice, oriented by vertebral levels (C1/C2-C4) and drawing in the axial and sagittal plane.The statistical analyses were performed by GraphPad Prism 8 software, using one way ANOVA.The results are presented in SUV (Standardized Uptake Value) at C1/C2, C3 and C4 levels.There were no statistical differences between the four VOI drawing strategies.Manual and semi-automatic drawing showed similar results, allowing the choice by a personal analyst preference.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".