Fully 4D list-mode reconstruction applied to respiratory-gated PET scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) is one of the most sensitive and specific imaging modalities for the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer. A drawback of PET is that it requires several minutes of acquisition per bed position, which results in images being affected by respiratory blur. Respiratory gating techniques have been developed to deal with respiratory motion in the PET images. However, these techniques considerably increase the level of noise in the reconstructed images unless the acquisition time is increased. The aim of this paper is to evaluate a four-dimensional (4D) image reconstruction algorithm that combines the acquired events in all the gates whilst preserving the motion deblurring. This algorithm was compared to classic ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction of gated and non-gated images, and to temporal filtering of gated images reconstructed with OSEM. Two datasets were used for comparing the different reconstruction approaches: one involving the NEMA IEC/2001 body phantom in motion, the other obtained using Monte-Carlo simulations of the NCAT breathing phantom. Results show that 4D reconstruction reaches a similar performance in terms of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as non-gated reconstruction whilst preserving the motion deblurring. In particular, 4D reconstruction improves the SNR compared to respiratory-gated images reconstructed with the OSEM algorithm. Temporal filtering of the OSEM-reconstructed images helps improve the SNR, but does not achieve the same performance as 4D reconstruction. 4D reconstruction of respiratory-gated images thus appears as a promising tool to reach the same performance in terms of the SNR as non-gated acquisitions while reducing the motion blur, without increasing the acquisition time.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".