Decentralized collaborative multi-institutional PET attenuation and scatter correction using federated deep learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose Attenuation correction and scatter compensation (AC/SC) are two main steps toward quantitative PET imaging, which remain challenging in PET-only and PET/MRI systems. These can be effectively tackled via deep learning (DL) methods. However, trustworthy, and generalizable DL models commonly require well-curated, heterogeneous, and large datasets from multiple clinical centers. At the same time, owing to legal/ethical issues and privacy concerns, forming a large collective, centralized dataset poses significant challenges. In this work, we aimed to develop a DL-based model in a multicenter setting without direct sharing of data using federated learning (FL) for AC/SC of PET images. Methods Non-attenuation/scatter corrected and CT-based attenuation/scatter corrected (CT-ASC) 18 F-FDG PET images of 300 patients were enrolled in this study. The dataset consisted of 6 different centers, each with 50 patients, with scanner, image acquisition, and reconstruction protocols varying across the centers. CT-based ASC PET images served as the standard reference. All images were reviewed to include high-quality and artifact-free PET images. Both corrected and uncorrected PET images were converted to standardized uptake values (SUVs). We used a modified nested U-Net utilizing residual U-block in a U-shape architecture. We evaluated two FL models, namely sequential (FL-SQ) and parallel (FL-PL) and compared their performance with the baseline centralized (CZ) learning model wherein the data were pooled to one server, as well as center-based (CB) models where for each center the model was built and evaluated separately. Data from each center were divided to contribute to training (30 patients), validation (10 patients), and test sets (10 patients). Final evaluations and reports were performed on 60 patients (10 patients from each center). Results In terms of percent SUV absolute relative error (ARE%), both FL-SQ (CI:12.21–14.81%) and FL-PL (CI:11.82–13.84%) models demonstrated excellent agreement with the centralized framework (CI:10.32–12.00%), while FL-based algorithms improved model performance by over 11% compared to CB training strategy (CI: 22.34–26.10%). Furthermore, the Mann–Whitney test between different strategies revealed no significant differences between CZ and FL-based algorithms ( p -value > 0.05) in center-categorized mode. At the same time, a significant difference was observed between the different training approaches on the overall dataset ( p -value < 0.05). In addition, voxel-wise comparison, with respect to reference CT-ASC, exhibited similar performance for images predicted by CZ ( R 2 = 0.94), FL-SQ ( R 2 = 0.93), and FL-PL ( R 2 = 0.92), while CB model achieved a far lower coefficient of determination ( R 2 = 0.74). Despite the strong correlations between CZ and FL-based methods compared to reference CT-ASC, a slight underestimation of predicted voxel values was observed. Conclusion Deep learning-based models provide promising results toward quantitative PET image reconstruction. Specifically, we developed two FL models and compared their performance with center-based and centralized models. The proposed FL-based models achieved higher performance compared to center-based models, comparable with centralized models. Our work provided strong empirical evidence that the FL framework can fully benefit from the generalizability and robustness of DL models used for AC/SC in PET, while obviating the need for the direct sharing of datasets between clinical imaging centers.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».