MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395026145 · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.103366

Heterogeneous PSMA ligand uptake inside parotid glands

2024· article· en· W4395026145 on OpenAlexafffund
Caleb Sample, Carlos Uribe, Arman Rahmim, François Bénard, Jonn Wu, Haley Clark

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysica Medica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLigand (biochemistry)ChemistryBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceBiophysicsMedicineBiologyBiochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this investigation is to quantify the spatial heterogeneity of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) uptake within parotid glands. We aim to quantify patterns in well-defined regions to facilitate further investigations. Furthermore, we investigate whether uptake is correlated with computed tomography (CT) texture features. METHODS: Parotid glands from [18F]DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT images of 30 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Uptake patterns were assessed with various segmentation schemes. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was calculated between PSMA PET uptake and feature values of a Grey Level Run Length Matrix using a long and short run length emphasis (GLRLML and GLRLMS) in subregions of the parotid gland. RESULTS: between parotid halves is greatest when parotids are divided by a plane separating the anterior/medial and posterior/lateral halves symmetrically (out of 120 bisections tested). PSMA PET uptake was significantly correlated with CT GLRLML (p < 0.001), and anti-correlated with CT GLRLMS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Uptake of PSMA PET is heterogeneous within parotid glands, with uptake biased towards lateral/posterior regions. Uptake within parotid glands was strongly correlated with CT texture feature maps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysica MedicaSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207