MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416610662 · doi:10.1007/s13139-025-00959-5

Optimizing 131I-mIBG Dosimetry: Validation of Simplified Time-Point and Segmentation Approaches

2025· article· en· W4416610662 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Kurkowska, Małgorzata Poniatowska, Carlos Uribe, Bożena Birkenfeld, Hanna Piwowarska-Bilska

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencySpinal Cord Injury BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationDosimetryHomogeneousProtocol (science)Absorbed doseRadiation treatment planningWorkflow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To evaluate simplified dosimetry methods for 131 I-mIBG therapy that maintain agreement with reference method while reducing clinical workflow burdens, particularly beneficial for pediatric applications. Methods In 24 patients, we implemented a hybrid protocol combining planar whole-body scans (1, 24, 48 h p.i.) with 24 h SPECT/CT for whole-body and liver dosimetry. Three liver segmentation methods were compared on SPECT/CT: whole-organ manual delineation (reference), 4 mL homogeneous sphere, and 4 mL peak sphere. To estimate time-integrated activity coefficients (TIACs) we modeled biokinetics with monoexponential using: full three-time-point data (reference), reduced combinations (1–2, 1–3, 2–3), Hänscheid single-time-point method, and population-based half-lives. Statistical analysis included linear mixed-effects modeling for segmentation comparisons and Bland-Altman analysis for TIAC method validation. Results The median absorbed dose was 0.36 mGy/MBq for liver and 0.09 mGy/MBq for whole-body. Among simplified protocols, dual-time-point 24–48 h imaging demonstrated the least bias, with liver absorbed doses showing − 0.02 mGy/MBq (limits of agreement: -0.08 to 0.04 mGy/MBq) and whole-body absorbed doses 0.001 mGy/MBq (limits of agreement: -0.004 to 0.005 mGy/MBq) compared to the full three-time-point reference results. Among single-time-point methods, for both liver and whole-body, the Hänscheid approach applied at 48 h demonstrated superior performance. The 4 mL peak sphere overestimated absorbed doses by 69% versus whole-organ delineation (0.61 vs. 0.36 mGy/MBq, p < 0.001), and homogeneous spheres underestimated by 8% (0.33 vs. 0.36 mGy/MBq, p = 0.046). Conclusions Clinically feasible 131 I-mIBG dosimetry can be achieved through: (1) dual 24 h/48 h imaging (< 6% mean bias), (2) single 48 h Hänscheid method (< 6% mean bias), and (3) homogeneous sphere liver segmentation ( < 8% mean difference from reference).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueNuclear Medicine and Molecular ImagingSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207