Iterative three‐dimensional expectation maximization restoration of single photon emission computed tomography images: Application in striatal imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single photon emission computed tomography imaging suffers from poor spatial resolution and high statistical noise. Consequently, the contrast of small structures is reduced, the visual detection of defects is limited and precise quantification is difficult. To improve the contrast, it is possible to include the spatially variant point spread function of the detection system into the iterative reconstruction algorithm. This kind of method is well known to be effective, but time consuming. We have developed a faster method to account for the spatial resolution loss in three dimensions, based on a postreconstruction restoration method. The method uses two steps. First, a noncorrected iterative ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction is performed and, in the second step, a three-dimensional (3D) iterative maximum likelihood expectation maximization (ML-EM) a posteriori spatial restoration of the reconstructed volume is done. In this paper, we compare to the standard OSEM-3D method, in three studies (two in simulation and one from experimental data). In the two first studies, contrast, noise, and visual detection of defects are studied. In the third study, a quantitative analysis is performed from data obtained with an anthropomorphic striatal phantom filled with 123-I. From the simulations, we demonstrate that contrast as a function of noise and lesion detectability are very similar for both OSEM-3D and OSEM-R methods. In the experimental study, we obtained very similar values of activity-quantification ratios for different regions in the brain. The advantage of OSEM-R compared to OSEM-3D is a substantial gain of processing time. This gain depends on several factors. In a typical situation, for a 128 x 128 acquisition of 120 projections, OSEM-R is 13 or 25 times faster than OSEM-3D, depending on the calculation method used in the iterative restoration. In this paper, the OSEM-R method is tested with the approximation of depth independent resolution. For the striatum this approximation is appropriate, but for other clinical situations we will need to include a spatially varying response. Such a response is already included in OSEM-3D.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".