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 OpenAlexaff
Laure Vergnaud, Yuni K. Dewaraja, Anne‐Laure Giraudet, Jean‐Noël Badel, David Sarrut

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 $$^{177}{\hbox {Lu}}$$ 177 Lu 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 $$^{177}{\hbox {Lu}}$$ 177 Lu -DOTATATE and $$^{177}{\hbox {Lu}}$$ 177 Lu -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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207