Quantification of Myocardial Blood Flow in Absolute Terms Using Rb-82 PET Imaging The RUBY-10 Study
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
©2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare myocardial blood flow (MBF) and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) estimates from rubidium-82 positron emission tomography (82Rb PET) data using 10 software packages (SPs) based on 8 tracer kinetic models. Background It is unknown how MBF and MFR values from existing SPs agree for 82Rb PET. Methods Rest and stress 82Rb PET scans of 48 patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease were analyzed in 10 centers. Each center used 1 of 10 SPs to analyze global and regional MBF using the different kinetic models implemented. Values were considered to agree if they simultaneously had an intraclass correlation coefficient >0.75 and a difference <20% of the median across all programs. Results The most common model evaluated was the Ottawa Heart Institute 1-tissue compartment model (OHI-1-TCM). MBF values from 7 of 8 SPs implementing this model agreed best. Values from 2 other models (alternative 1-TCM and Axially distributed) also agreed well, with occasional differences. The MBF Results from other models (e.g., 2-TCM and retention) were less in agreement with values from OHI-1-TCM. Conclusions SPs using the most common kinetic model-OHI-1-TCM-provided consistent Results in measuring global and regional MBF values, suggesting that they may be used interchangeably to process data acquired with a common imaging protocol. (J AmColl Cardiol Img 2014;7:1119-27)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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