MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018457357 · doi:10.1118/1.3466832

A PET supersets data framework for exploitation of known motion in image reconstruction

2010· article· en· W2018457357 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeroen Verhaeghe, Andrew J. Reader

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedical imagingIterative reconstructionComputer visionMotion (physics)Image (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMedical physicsComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Motion during PET data acquisition is either introduced by design (e.g., couch wobble to enrich data sampling) or through unintentional motion of the object under study (e.g., subject head motion). Prior to this present work, such effects have been considered within distinctly different frameworks in PET imaging, with a rather basic approach having been devised for the cases of intentional motion (such as couch wobble or bed translation) in contrast to the relatively advanced modeling approaches devised for object motion. This article unifies the treatment of these different types of acquisition motion within a generalized framework through the use of the PET supersets data format. From this general framework, a range of conventional motion-compensation methods can be examined as special cases, permitting a revealing investigation into both the suboptimality of commonly adopted approximations, as well as the beneficial impact of known acquisition motion on image quality. METHODS: The PET superset data format is a data representation ideally suited for the (potentially lossless) combination of conventional PET data with complementary motion information. Different practical implementations for the reconstruction from PET superset data involving varying levels of approximation to facilitate computation are identified and their impact on the final reconstructed image quality is assessed. Three main simulated case studies are investigated: (i) Motion compensation for subject head motion for 18F-FDG imaging, (ii) motion exploitation using either couch wobble or random motion, and (iii) motion exploitation using involuntary object motion both with and without couch wobble occurring. The motion exploitation case study goes beyond merely correcting for motion: The motion is directly modeled by the iterative reconstruction to exploit the increased sampling which is available to the benefit of reconstructed image quality. RESULTS: Reconstruction from superset data was successfully demonstrated for the case of motion correction for a 18F-FDG brain phantom simulation. Building on this success, the methodology was then applied to the case of motion exploitation. The case study resulted in three important findings. First, only reconstruction implementations which model the motion directly within the iterative reconstruction can succeed in significantly improving image resolution and contrast recovery for a given reconstructed noise level. Therefore, the commonly adopted approximation of binning the motion-adjusted data (which is the only method reported to date in the literature) is suboptimal and underestimates the beneficial impact of methods such as wobble during acquisition. Second, similar improvements were found for both types of motion patterns: Periodic wobble motion as well as random motion. Finally, for the case of simulated realistic involuntary object motion, similar resolution improvements were found (both with and without couch wobble). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed superset framework allows comprehensive analysis of the commonly adopted approximations when considering motion in PET reconstruction. The findings demonstrate that the supersets data format successfully unify reconstruction in the presence of different sources of known acquisition motion into one framework, and as a result leads to hitherto unreported image quality improvements for all the cases tested where the object motion is accurately known.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207