The performance of monotonic and new non-monotonic gradient ascent reconstruction algorithms for high-resolution neuroreceptor PET imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iterative expectation maximization (EM) techniques have been extensively used to solve maximum likelihood (ML) problems in positron emission tomography (PET) image reconstruction. Although EM methods offer a robust approach to solving ML problems, they usually suffer from slow convergence rates. The ordered subsets EM (OSEM) algorithm provides significant improvements in the convergence rate, but it can cycle between estimates converging towards the ML solution of each subset. In contrast, gradient-based methods, such as the recently proposed non-monotonic maximum likelihood (NMML) and the more established preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG), offer a globally convergent, yet equally fast, alternative to OSEM. Reported results showed that NMML provides faster convergence compared to OSEM; however, it has never been compared to other fast gradient-based methods, like PCG. Therefore, in this work we evaluate the performance of two gradient-based methods (NMML and PCG) and investigate their potential as an alternative to the fast and widely used OSEM. All algorithms were evaluated using 2D simulations, as well as a single [(11)C]DASB clinical brain dataset. Results on simulated 2D data show that both PCG and NMML achieve orders of magnitude faster convergence to the ML solution compared to MLEM and exhibit comparable performance to OSEM. Equally fast performance is observed between OSEM and PCG for clinical 3D data, but NMML seems to perform poorly. However, with the addition of a preconditioner term to the gradient direction, the convergence behaviour of NMML can be substantially improved. Although PCG is a fast convergent algorithm, the use of a (bent) line search increases the complexity of the implementation, as well as the computational time involved per iteration. Contrary to previous reports, NMML offers no clear advantage over OSEM or PCG, for noisy PET data. Therefore, we conclude that there is little evidence to replace OSEM as the algorithm of choice for many applications, especially given that in practice convergence is often not desired for algorithms seeking ML estimates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".