MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394690080 · doi:10.1097/rct.0000000000001617

Reduced Intravenous Contrast Dose Portal Venous Phase Photon-Counting Computed Tomography Compared With Conventional Energy-Integrating Detector Portal Venous Phase Computed Tomography

2024· article· en· W4394690080 on OpenAlexaff
Bari Dane, Tarub S. Mabud, Kira Melamud, Luke Ginocchio, Paul Smereka, Mabel Okyere, Thomas O’Donnell, Alec J. Megibow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Assisted Tomography · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineRadiologyHounsfield scaleConfidence intervalComputed tomographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare portal venous phase photon-counting CT (PCCT) using 20 cc less than weight-based contrast dosing with energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) using weight-based dosing by quantitative and qualitative analysis. METHODS: Fifty adult patients who underwent a reduced intravenous contrast dose portal venous phase PCCT from May 1, 2023, to August 10, 2023, and a prior portal-venous EID-CT with weight-based contrast dosing were retrospectively identified. Hounsfield units (HU) and noise (SD of HU) were obtained from region-of-interest measurements on 70-keV PCCT and EID-CT in 4 hepatic segments, the main and right portal vein, and both paraspinal muscles. Signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios were computed. Three abdominal radiologists qualitatively assessed overall image quality, hepatic enhancement, and confidence for metastasis identification on 5-point Likert scales. Readers also recorded the presence/absence of hepatic metastases. Quantitative variables were compared with paired t tests, and multiple comparisons were accounted for with a Bonferroni-adjusted α level of .0016. Ordinal logistic regression was used to evaluate qualitative assessments. Interreader agreement for hepatic metastases was calculated using Fleiss' κ. RESULTS: Fifty patients (32 women; mean [SD] age, 64 [13] years) were included. There was no significant difference in hepatic HU, portal vein HU, noise, and signal-to-noise or contrast-to-noise ratio between reduced contrast dose portal venous phase PCCT versus EID-CT (all P s > 0.0016). Image quality, degree of hepatic enhancement, and confidence for metastasis identification were not different for reduced dose PCCT 70-keV images and EID-CT ( P = 0.06-0.69). κ Value for metastasis identification was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.00) with PCCT and 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.98) with EID-CT. CONCLUSION: Reduced intravenous contrast portal venous phase PCCT 70-keV images had similar attenuation and image quality as EID-CT with weight-based dosing. Metastases were identified with near-perfect agreement in reduced dose PCCT 70-keV images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computer Assisted TomographySame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207