Motion correction of PET brain images through deconvolution: II. Practical implementation and algorithm optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image quality is significantly degraded even by small amounts of patient motion in very high-resolution PET scanners. When patient motion is known, deconvolution methods can be used to correct the reconstructed image and reduce motion blur. This paper describes the implementation and optimization of an iterative deconvolution method that uses an ordered subset approach to make it practical and clinically viable. We performed ten separate FDG PET scans using the Hoffman brain phantom and simultaneously measured its motion using the Polaris Vicra tracking system (Northern Digital Inc., Ontario, Canada). The feasibility and effectiveness of the technique was studied by performing scans with different motion and deconvolution parameters. Deconvolution resulted in visually better images and significant improvement as quantified by the Universal Quality Index (UQI) and contrast measures. Finally, the technique was applied to human studies to demonstrate marked improvement. Thus, the deconvolution technique presented here appears promising as a valid alternative to existing motion correction methods for PET. It has the potential for deblurring an image from any modality if the causative motion is known and its effect can be represented in a system matrix.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".