MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407638266 · doi:10.1109/trpms.2025.3542729

Lower Extremity Flow Quantification Using Dynamic ⁸²Rb PET: A Preclinical Investigation

2025· article· en· W4407638266 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Guo, Stephanie Thorn, Pedro Gil de Rubio Cruz, Zhao Liu, Jean‐Dominique Gallezot, Qiong Liu, Eric Moulton, Richard E. Carson, Albert J. Sinusas, Chi Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMicropharma (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsPositron emission tomographyFlow (mathematics)MedicineNuclear medicineMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate assessment of regional flow in the lower extremities is crucial for managing peripheral arterial disease with critical limb ischemia. This study investigates dynamic 82Rb PET imaging with kinetic modeling for evaluating skeletal muscle flow in a porcine model of hindlimb ischemia. Five pigs with acute unilateral occlusion of the right common femoral artery were scanned at rest using two protocols: The first protocol involved two sequential injections to measure the image-derived input function (IDIF) in the left ventricle (LV) and leg blood flow. A three-parameter one-tissue compartment with spillover model estimated skeletal muscle flow in ischemic and nonischemic limbs. The effects of correcting delay and dispersion of LV-IDIF on model fitting were explored. For short axial field of view scanners, the feasibility of a single injection with shuttling between the heart and the leg was also assessed. Flow estimates ranged from 0.012 to 0.077 cm3/min/cm3 across animals and significantly decreased on ischemic muscles (p < 0.05). Delay and dispersion corrections yielded improved Akaike information criterion values and physiological consistency. However, accurate corrections were more difficult using the single injection and shuttling protocol. Future studies to optimize data acquisition are needed.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical SciencesSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207