MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934517153 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.156000

Whole-Body PET/MR Imaging: Quantitative Evaluation of a Novel Model-Based MR Attenuation Correction Method Including Bone

2015· article· en· W1934517153 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel H. Paulus, Harald H. Quick, Christian Geppert, Matthias Fenchel, Yiqiang Zhan, Gerardo Hermosillo, David Faul, Fernando E. Boada, Kent Friedman, Thomas Koesters

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityNational Institutes of HealthSiemensNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringYork UniversityCenter for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research
KeywordsCorrection for attenuationSoft tissueNuclear medicineWhole body imagingSegmentationPositron emission tomographyMedicineComputer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: In routine whole-body PET/MR hybrid imaging, attenuation correction (AC) is usually performed by segmentation methods based on a Dixon MR sequence providing up to 4 different tissue classes. Because of the lack of bone information with the Dixon-based MR sequence, bone is currently considered as soft tissue. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate a novel model-based AC method that considers bone in whole-body PET/MR imaging. METHODS: The new method ("Model") is based on a regular 4-compartment segmentation from a Dixon sequence ("Dixon"). Bone information is added using a model-based bone segmentation algorithm, which includes a set of prealigned MR image and bone mask pairs for each major body bone individually. Model was quantitatively evaluated on 20 patients who underwent whole-body PET/MR imaging. As a standard of reference, CT-based μ-maps were generated for each patient individually by nonrigid registration to the MR images based on PET/CT data. This step allowed for a quantitative comparison of all μ-maps based on a single PET emission raw dataset of the PET/MR system. Volumes of interest were drawn on normal tissue, soft-tissue lesions, and bone lesions; standardized uptake values were quantitatively compared. RESULTS: In soft-tissue regions with background uptake, the average bias of SUVs in background volumes of interest was 2.4% ± 2.5% and 2.7% ± 2.7% for Dixon and Model, respectively, compared with CT-based AC. For bony tissue, the -25.5% ± 7.9% underestimation observed with Dixon was reduced to -4.9% ± 6.7% with Model. In bone lesions, the average underestimation was -7.4% ± 5.3% and -2.9% ± 5.8% for Dixon and Model, respectively. For soft-tissue lesions, the biases were 5.1% ± 5.1% for Dixon and 5.2% ± 5.2% for Model. CONCLUSION: The novel MR-based AC method for whole-body PET/MR imaging, combining Dixon-based soft-tissue segmentation and model-based bone estimation, improves PET quantification in whole-body hybrid PET/MR imaging, especially in bony tissue and nearby soft tissue.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations174
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207