A methodology for generating normal and pathological brain perfusion SPECT images for evaluation of MRI/SPECT fusion methods: application in epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative evaluation of brain MRI/SPECT fusion methods for normal and in particular pathological datasets is difficult, due to the frequent lack of relevant ground truth. We propose a methodology to generate MRI and SPECT datasets dedicated to the evaluation of MRI/SPECT fusion methods and illustrate the method when dealing with ictal SPECT. The method consists in generating normal or pathological SPECT data perfectly aligned with a high-resolution 3D T1-weighted MRI using realistic Monte Carlo simulations that closely reproduce the response of a SPECT imaging system. Anatomical input data for the SPECT simulations are obtained from this 3D T1-weighted MRI, while functional input data result from an inter-individual analysis of anatomically standardized SPECT data. The method makes it possible to control the 'brain perfusion' function by proposing a theoretical model of brain perfusion from measurements performed on real SPECT images. Our method provides an absolute gold standard for assessing MRI/SPECT registration method accuracy since, by construction, the SPECT data are perfectly registered with the MRI data. The proposed methodology has been applied to create a theoretical model of normal brain perfusion and ictal brain perfusion characteristic of mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. To approach realistic and unbiased perfusion models, real SPECT data were corrected for uniform attenuation, scatter and partial volume effect. An anatomic standardization was used to account for anatomic variability between subjects. Realistic simulations of normal and ictal SPECT deduced from these perfusion models are presented. The comparison of real and simulated SPECT images showed relative differences in regional activity concentration of less than 20% in most anatomical structures, for both normal and ictal data, suggesting realistic models of perfusion distributions for evaluation purposes. Inter-hemispheric asymmetry coefficients measured on simulated data were found within the range of asymmetry coefficients measured on corresponding real data. The features of the proposed approach are compared with those of other methods previously described to obtain datasets appropriate for the assessment of fusion methods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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".