MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229078920

Assessment of scatter compensation strategies for (67)Ga SPECT using numerical observers and human LROC studies.

2004· article· en· W2229078920 on OpenAlexaff
Troy Farncombe, Howard C. Gifford, Manoj Narayanan, P. Hendrik Pretorius, Eric C. Frey, Michael A. King

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtractionObserver (physics)Compensation (psychology)Single-photon emission computed tomographySpect imagingMathematicsEnergy (signal processing)OpticsNuclear medicineComputer sciencePhysicsStatisticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: 67Ga citrate is an oncologic SPECT imaging agent often used to diagnose or stage patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. As (67)Ga decay involves the emission of multiple-energy gamma-rays, significant photon downscatter will be present within each photopeak energy window. We have previously shown that the inclusion of these scattered photons significantly degrades lesion detectability. The goal of this study was to investigate the extent to which this decrease in detectability can be reversed by applying scatter compensation strategies. METHODS: We have compared 5 different scatter compensation methods to the case of no scatter compensation in iterative SPECT image reconstruction. The strategies consisted of (a). perfect scatter rejection, (b). ideal scatter compensation, (c). triple-energy window (TEW) scatter estimation, (d). effective scatter source estimation (ESSE), and (e). postreconstruction scatter subtraction. Reconstruction parameters used for each method were first optimized using a channelized Hotelling numerical observer. Strategies were then ranked in terms of lesion detectability using a human observer localization receiver operating characteristic (LROC) study. An additional comparison was made comparing the human LROC rankings with a recently developed channelized nonprewhitening (CNPW) LROC numerical observer. RESULTS: Using the area-under-the-LROC-curve (A(LROC)) as the assessment criterion, our results indicate that the TEW and ESSE scatter compensation methods are able to significantly improve lesion detectability over no compensation (A(LROC) = 0.75 and 0.73 vs. 0.67, respectively). However, these compensations failed to achieve the same detectability as perfect scatter rejection (A(LROC) = 0.84). Both ideal scatter compensation and postreconstruction scatter subtraction resulted in numerical increases in detection accuracy that were not statistically significant from no scatter compensation. Good agreement is seen between the CNPW observer and human LROC studies (Spearman rank order coefficient, r(s) = 0.74), thus indicating that the LROC observer may be a good predictor of human observer performance in (67)Ga SPECT. CONCLUSION: Scatter compensation in (67)Ga SPECT imaging using techniques such as TEW or ESSE is able to improve lesion detectability compared with no scatter compensation. A recently developed numerical observer model appears to be a good predictor of human observer performance and may be used to perform imaging optimizations, thereby reducing the need for human LROC studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207