Quantitative comparison of OSEM and penalized likelihood image reconstruction using relative difference penalties for clinical PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM) is the most widely used algorithm for clinical PET image reconstruction. OSEM is usually stopped early and post-filtered to control image noise and does not necessarily achieve optimal quantitation accuracy. As an alternative to OSEM, we have recently implemented a penalized likelihood (PL) image reconstruction algorithm for clinical PET using the relative difference penalty with the aim of improving quantitation accuracy without compromising visual image quality. Preliminary clinical studies have demonstrated visual image quality including lesion conspicuity in images reconstructed by the PL algorithm is better than or at least as good as that in OSEM images. In this paper we evaluate lesion quantitation accuracy of the PL algorithm with the relative difference penalty compared to OSEM by using various data sets including phantom data acquired with an anthropomorphic torso phantom, an extended oval phantom and the NEMA image quality phantom; clinical data; and hybrid clinical data generated by adding simulated lesion data to clinical data. We focus on mean standardized uptake values and compare them for PL and OSEM using both time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF data. The results demonstrate improvements of PL in lesion quantitation accuracy compared to OSEM with a particular improvement in cold background regions such as lungs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".