EM reconstruction of dual isotope PET using staggered injections and prompt gamma positron emitters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of dual isotope positron emission tomography (DIPET) is to create two separate images of two coinjected PET radiotracers. DIPET shortens the duration of the study, reduces patient discomfort, and produces perfectly coregistered images compared to the case when two radiotracers would be imaged independently (sequential PET studies). Reconstruction of data from such simultaneous acquisition of two PET radiotracers is difficult because positron decay of any isotope creates only 511 keV photons; therefore, the isotopes cannot be differentiated based on the detected energy. METHODS: Recently, the authors have proposed a DIPET technique that uses a combination of radiotracer A which is a pure positron emitter (such as(18)F or (11)C) and radiotracer B in which positron decay is accompanied by the emission of a high-energy (HE) prompt gamma (such as (38)K or (60)Cu). Events that are detected as triple coincidences of HE gammas with the corresponding two 511 keV photons allow the authors to identify the lines-of-response (LORs) of isotope B. These LORs are used to separate the two intertwined distributions, using a dedicated image reconstruction algorithm. In this work the authors propose a new version of the DIPET EM-based reconstruction algorithm that allows the authors to include an additional, independent estimate of radiotracer A distribution which may be obtained if radioisotopes are administered using a staggered injections method. In this work the method is tested on simple simulations of static PET acquisitions. RESULTS: The authors' experiments performed using Monte-Carlo simulations with static acquisitions demonstrate that the combined method provides better results (crosstalk errors decrease by up to 50%) than the positron-gamma DIPET method or staggered injections alone. CONCLUSIONS: The authors demonstrate that the authors' new EM algorithm which combines information from triple coincidences with prompt gammas and staggered injections improves the accuracy of DIPET reconstructions for static acquisitions so they reach almost the benchmark level calculated for perfectly separated tracers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".