Comparison of Planar and 3-Dimensional Methods for Quantification of Differential Renal Function Using <sup>99m</sup> Tc-DMSA and <sup>99m</sup> Tc-Glucoheptonate Renal Scintigraphy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine whether the calculation of the differential renal function (DRF) for renal scintigraphy using volumetric assessment is equivalent to conventional planar assessment using the geometric mean. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective study was conducted with 108 patients referred for cortical renal scintigraphy. Forty-five patients were injected with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), and 63 patients were injected with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-glucoheptonate and furosemide, depending on which radiotracer was available at the time of the examination. DRF was measured using automatic 3-dimensional volume-of-interest delineation software on SPECT and 2-dimensional manual regions of interest on planar images, with geometric mean calculated for all patients. Images were reviewed by 2 independent masked observers. To assess intrarater reliability, a random sample of 20 images (10 with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-DMSA and 10 with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-glucoheptonate) was reprocessed by the same observers to after a minimum 2-wk interval to minimize recall bias. Values obtained by planar and SPECT methods were compared using a paired Student <i>t</i> test. Reproducibility was assessed through intraobserver and interobserver analyses using the intraclass correlation coefficient. <b>Results:</b> There was a significant difference in DRF values obtained by planar and SPECT methods with both <sup>99m</sup>Tc-glucoheptonate and <sup>99m</sup>Tc-DMSA (<i>P</i> < 0.05), with maximum absolute differences of 40.0% and 13.0%, respectively. High intrarater and interrater intraclass correlation coefficients were obtained for both methods and radiotracers (>0.9), indicating excellent reliability. <b>Conclusion:</b> The SPECT quantification method for the evaluation of DRF is reliable because of high intraobserver and interobserver agreement. Furthermore, it differs significantly from the planar quantification method, with more pronounced differences observed with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-glucoheptonate compared with <sup>99m</sup>Tc-DMSA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it