Publicly available framework for simulating and experimentally validating clinical PET systems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are a powerful tool to model medical imaging systems. However, before simulations can be considered the ground truth, they have to be validated with experiments. PURPOSE: To provide a pipeline that models a clinical positron emission tomography (PET)/CT system using MC simulations after extensively validating the results against experimental measurements. METHODS: A clinical four-ring PET imaging system was modeled using Geant4 application for tomographic emission (v. 9.0). To validate the simulations, PET images were acquired of a cylindrical phantom, point source, and image quality phantom with the modeled system and the simulations of the experimental procedures. For the purpose of validating the quantification capabilities and image quality provided by the simulation pipeline, the simulations were compared against the measurements in terms of their count rates and sensitivity as well as their image uniformity, resolution, recovery coefficients (RCs), coefficients of variation, contrast, and background variability. RESULTS: When compared to the measured data, the number of true detections in the MC simulations was within 5%. The scatter fraction was found to be 30.0% ± 2.2% and 28.8% ± 1.7% in the measured and simulated scans, respectively. Analyzing the measured and simulated sinograms, the sensitivities were found to be 8.2 and 7.8 cps/kBq, respectively. The fraction of random coincidences were 19% in the measured data and 25% in the simulation. When calculating the image uniformity within the axial slices, the measured image exhibited a uniformity of 0.015 ± 0.005, whereas the simulated image had a uniformity of 0.029 ± 0.011. In the axial direction, the uniformity was measured to be 0.024 ± 0.006 and 0.040 ± 0.015 for the measured and simulated data, respectively. Comparing the image resolution, an average percentage difference of 2.9% was found between the measurements and simulations. The RCs calculated in both the measured and simulated images were found to be within the EARL ranges, except for that of the simulation of the smallest sphere. The coefficients of variation for the measured and simulated images were found to be 12% and 13%, respectively. Lastly, the background variability was consistent between the measurements and simulations, whereas the average percentage difference in the sphere contrasts was found to be 8.8%. CONCLUSION: The clinical PET/CT system was modeled and validated to provide a simulation pipeline for the community. The pipeline and the validation procedures have been made available (https://github.com/teaghan/PET_MonteCarlo).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,060 | 0,033 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».