MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401596345 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2024.952

Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory 2022–2023: SPECT and SPECT-CT

2024· article· en· W4401596345 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CADTH

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear medicineSpect imagingMedicineSingle-photon emission computed tomographyMedical imagingRadiologyMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SPECT is a nuclear imaging technique that provides 3D information on functional and molecular processes in the body. SPECT has been integrated with CT to combine the imaging strengths of both modalities in SPECT-CT. In total, 331 SPECT-CT units in 10 provinces and 210 SPECT units operating in 9 provinces were identified by the Canadian Medical Imaging Inventory (CMII) in its 2022–2023 national survey. There are no SPECT-CT and SPECT units operating in Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Canada has 8.3 SPECT-CT units per million people and 5.3 SPECT units per million people. The greatest density of units per million people for SPECT-CT is in Newfoundland and Labrador and the greatest density for SPECT are in Alberta and New Brunswick. The combined volume of SPECT-CT and SPECT exams conducted in 2022–2023 has decreased by approximately 37.5% since 2015, which is attributed to the gradual decommissioning of SPECT units and replacement of these technologies with other imaging modalities. SPECT-CT is primarily used for oncology exams, followed by cardiology exams and musculoskeletal exams. SPECT is primarily used for cardiology exams, followed by oncology and musculoskeletal exams. On average, SPECT-CT and SPECT units operate approximately 42 hours per week across jurisdictions in Canada that have capacity.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.009

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207