MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895526599 · doi:10.1002/mp.13225

Recovery of missing data in partial geometry <scp>PET</scp> scanners: Compensation in projection space vs image space

2018· article· en· W2895526599 on OpenAlexaff
Seyedehsamaneh Shojaeilangari, C. Ross Schmidtlein, Arman Rahmim, Mohammad Reza Ay

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health ServicesNational Cancer InstituteIran's National Elites Foundation
KeywordsInpaintingArtificial intelligenceIterative reconstructionMissing dataComputer scienceComputer visionProjection (relational algebra)Noise reductionCompressed sensingk-spaceImage qualityRegularization (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsAlgorithmImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Robust and reliable reconstruction of images from noisy and incomplete projection data holds significant potential for proliferation of cost-effective medical imaging technologies. Since conventional reconstruction techniques can generate severe artifacts in the recovered images, a notable line of research constitutes development of appropriate algorithms to compensate for missing data and to reduce noise. In the present work, we investigate the effectiveness of state-of-the-art methodologies developed for image inpainting and noise reduction to preserve the quality of reconstructed images from undersampled PET data. We aimed to assess and ascertain whether missing data recovery is best performed in the projection space prior to reconstruction or adjoined with the reconstruction step in image space. METHODS: Different strategies for data recovery were investigated using realistic patient derived phantoms (brain and abdomen) in PET scanners with partial geometry (small and large gap structures). Specifically, gap filling strategies in projection space were compared with reconstruction based compensation in image space. The methods used for filling the gap structure in sinogram PET data include partial differential equation based techniques (PDE), total variation (TV) regularization, discrete cosine transform(DCT)-based penalized regression, and dictionary learning based inpainting (DLI). For compensation in image space, compressed sensing based image reconstruction methods were applied. These include the preconditioned alternating projection (PAPA) algorithm with first and higher order total variation (HOTV) regularization as well as dictionary learning based compressed sensing (DLCS). We additionally investigated the performance of the methods for recovery of missing data in the presence of simulated lesion. The impact of different noise levels in the undersampled sinograms on performance of the approaches were also evaluated. RESULTS: In our first study (brain imaging), DLI was shown to outperform other methods for small gap structure in terms of root mean square error (RMSE) and structural similarity (SSIM), though having relatively high computational cost. For large gap structure, HOTV-PAPA produces better results. In the second study (abdomen imaging), again the best performance belonged to DLI for small gap, and HOTV-PAPA for large gap. In our experiments for lesion simulation on patient brain phantom data, the best performance in term of contrast recovery coefficient (CRC) for small gap simulation belonged to DLI, while in the case of large gap simulation, HOTV-PAPA outperformed others. Our evaluation of the impact of noise on performance of approaches indicated that in case of low and medium noise levels, DLI still produces favorable results among inpainting approaches. However, for high noise levels, the performance of PDE4 (variant of PDE) and DLI are very competitive. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that estimation of missing data in projection space as a preprocessing step before reconstruction can improve the quality of recovered images especially for small gap structures. However, when large portions of data are missing, compressed sensing techniques adjoined with the reconstruction step in image space were the best strategy.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207