The clinical acceptability of short versus long duration acquisitions for head and neck cancer using long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: a retrospective evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To evaluate the utility of long duration (10 min) acquisitions compared to standard 4 min scans in the evaluation of head and neck cancer (HNC) using a long-axial field-of-view (LAFOV) system in 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT. Methods HNC patients undergoing LAFOV PET/CT were included retrospectively according to a predefined sample size calculation. For each acquisition, FDG avid lymph nodes (LN) which were highly probable or equivocal for malignancy were identified by two board certified nuclear medicine physicians in consensus. The aim of this study was to establish the clinical acceptability of short-duration (4 min, C40%) acquisitions compared to full-count (10 min, C100%) in terms of the detection of LN metastases in HNC. Secondary endpoints were the positive predictive value for LN status (PPV) and comparison of SUVmax at C40% and C100%. Histology reports or confirmatory imaging were the reference standard. Results A total of 1218 records were screened and target recruitment was met with n = 64 HNC patients undergoing LAFOV. Median age was 65 years (IQR: 59–73). At C40%, a total of 387 lesions were detected (highly probable LN n = 274 and equivocal n = 113. The total number of lesions detected at C100% acquisition was 439, of them 291 (66%) highly probable LN and 148 (34%) equivocal. Detection rate between the two acquisitions did not demonstrate any significant differences (Pearson’s Chi-Square test, p = 0.792). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for C40% were 83%, 44%, 55%, 76% and 36%, whilst for C100% were 85%, 56%, 55%, 85% and 43%, respectively. The improved accuracy reached borderline significance (p = 0.057). At the ROC analysis, lower SUVmax was identified for C100% (3.5) compared to C40% (4.5). Conclusion In terms of LN detection, C40% acquisitions showed no significant difference compared to the C100% acquisitions. There was some improvement for lesions detection at C100%, with a small increment in accuracy reaching borderline significance, suggestive that the higher sensitivity afforded by LAFOV might translate to improved clinical performance in some patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".