MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2546678739 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2011.6153752

Direct 3D PET image reconstruction into MR image space

2011· article· en· W2546678739 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Gravel, Jeroen Verhaeghe, Andrew J. Reader

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceInterpolation (computer graphics)Image registrationIterative reconstructionComputer scienceImage qualityImage resolutionTransformation (genetics)Similarity (geometry)Image scalingImage (mathematics)Image processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method which includes both the motion correction and image registration transformation parameters from PET image space to MR image space within the system matrix of the MLEM algorithm is presented. This approach can be of particular significance in the fields of neuroscience and psychiatry, whereby PET is used to investigate differences in activation patterns between groups of participants (such as healthy controls and patients). This requires all images to be registered in a common spatial atlas. Currently, image registration is performed post-reconstruction. This introduces interpolation effects in the final image and causes image resolution degradation. Furthermore, motion correction introduces a further level of interpolation and possible resolution degradation. To include the transformation parameters (both for motion correction and registration) within the iterative PET reconstruction framework (through iterative use of actual software packages routinely applied after reconstruction) should reduce these interpolation effects and thus improve image resolution. Furthermore, it opens the possibility of direct reconstruction of the PET data into standardized stereotaxic atlases, e.g. ICBM152. To validate the proposed method, this work investigates registration, using 2D and 3D simulations based on the HRRT scanner geometry, between different image spaces using rigid body transformation parameters calculated using the mutual information similarity criterion. The quality of reconstruction was assessed using bias-variance and mean absolute error analyses to quantify differences with current post-reconstruction registration methods. We demonstrate a reduction in bias and in mean absolute error in reconstructed mean ROI activity when using the proposed method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→