MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Additional value of combining low-dose computed tomography to V/Q SPECT on a hybrid SPECT-CT camera for pulmonary embolism diagnosis

2015· article· en· W569291799 on OpenAlex
Pierre‐Yves Le Roux, Philippe Robin, Aurélien Delluc, Ronan Abgral, Xavier Palard, V. Tissot, A. Morel, J. Rousset, Françis Couturaud, Grégoire Le Gal, Pierre‐Yves Salaün

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicinePulmonary embolismSingle-photon emission computed tomographySpect imagingEmission computed tomographyComputed tomographyRadiologyPositron emission tomographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the potential interest of combining a low-dose computed tomography (ldCT) to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE). We addressed three main questions: Could ldCT be used in substitution to ventilation SPECT? Could ldCT improve the diagnostic performance of V/Q SPECT? Could ldCT provide alternative diagnoses to PE? METHODS: A total of 393 patients previously analysed in a management outcome study that aimed at assessing the safety of V/Q SPECT for PE diagnosis were assessed. All patients underwent an ldCT under the same SPECT-computed tomography camera, which was not used at the time of initial interpretation. Three retrospective analyses were performed: Q SPECT combined with ldCT, V/Q SPECT combined with ldCT and ldCT only. RESULTS: On the basis of initial V/Q SPECT interpretation, 110 (28%) patients were positive and 283 (72%) were negative for PE.With Q SPECT-ldCT, 139 (35%) patients were positive and 254 (65%) were negative, with 55 (19%) discrepancies when compared with V/Q SPECT. Of the 283 patients with negative V/Q SPECT, 42 were positive with V/Q SPECT-ldCT, and among the 110 patients with positive V/Q SPECT 13 were negative with V/Q SPECT-ldCT. On using V/Q SPECT-ldCT, 97 (25%) patients were positive and 296 (75%) were negative, with 13 (3%) discrepancies when compared with V/Q SPECT (all had had a positive V/Q SPECT but a negative V/Q SPECT-ldCT). Finally, 67 (24%) ldCT scans showed a potential alternative diagnosis to PE. CONCLUSION: For PE diagnosis with lung SPECT, the use of ldCT in substitution to ventilation SPECT is associated with a high risk of overdiagnosis. The diagnostic value of ldCT in addition to V/Q SPECT remains unclear. Further studies are needed to determine its potential role in PE diagnosis.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.260 · 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