Development and use of a kinetic FDG-PET dataset simulated from the MNI standard brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulated data is an important tool for evaluation of reconstruction and image processing algorithms in the frequent absence of ground truth, in-vivo data from living subjects. This is especially true in the case of dynamic PET studies, in which counting statistics of the volume can vary widely over the time-course of the acquisition. Realistic simulated data-sets which model anatomy and physiology, and make explicit the spatial and temporal image acquisition characteristics, facilitate experimentation with a wide range of the conditions anticipated in practice, and which can severely challenge algorithm performance and reliability. As a first example, we have developed a realistic dynamic FDG-PET data-set using the PET-SORTEO Monte Carlo simulation code and the MNI digital brain phantom. The phantom is a three-dimensional data-set that defines the spatial distribution of different tissues. Time activity curves were calculated using an impulse response function specified by generally accepted rate constants, convolved with an input function obtained by blood sampling, and assigned to grey and white matter tissue regions. We created a dynamic PET study using PET-SORTEO configured to simulate an ECAT Exact HR+. The resulting sinograms were reconstructed with all corrections, using variations of FBP and OSEM. Having constructed the dynamic PET data-sets, we used them to evaluate the performance of intensity-based registration as part of a tool for quantifying hyper/hypo perfusion with particular application to analysis of brain dementia scans, and a study of the stability of kinetic parameter estimation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".