MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400793392 · doi:10.1186/s40658-024-00658-8

A review of 177Lu dosimetry workflows: how to reduce the imaging workloads?

2024· review· en· W4400793392 on OpenAlex
Laure Vergnaud, Yuni K. Dewaraja, Anne‐Laure Giraudet, Jean‐Noël Badel, David Sarrut

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersLabEx PRIMESInstitut National Du CancerDirection Générale de l’offre de SoinsInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceWorkflowDosimetryNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceDatabaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract $$^{177}{\hbox {Lu}}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>177</mml:mn> </mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mtext>Lu</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> radiopharmaceutical therapy is a standardized systemic treatment, with a typical dose of 7.4 GBq per injection, but its response varies from patient to patient. Dosimetry provides the opportunity to personalize treatment, but it requires multiple post-injection images to monitor the radiopharmaceutical’s biodistribution over time. This imposes an additional imaging burden on centers with limited resources. This review explores methods to lessen this burden by optimizing acquisition types and minimizing the number and duration of imaging sessions. After summarizing the different steps of dosimetry and providing examples of dosimetric workflows for $$^{177}{\hbox {Lu}}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>177</mml:mn> </mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mtext>Lu</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> -DOTATATE and $$^{177}{\hbox {Lu}}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mrow/> <mml:mn>177</mml:mn> </mml:mmultiscripts> <mml:mtext>Lu</mml:mtext> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> -PSMA, we examine dosimetric workflows based on a reduced number of acquisitions, or even just one. We provide a non-exhaustive description of simplified methods and their assumptions, as well as their limitations. Next, we detail the specificities of each normal tissue and tumors, before reviewing dose-response relationships in the literature. In conclusion, we will discuss the current limitations of dosimetric workflows and propose avenues for improvement.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.354 · 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