MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912840639 · doi:10.1002/mp.13418

Two novel PET image restoration methods guided by PET‐MR kernels: Application to brain imaging

2019· article· en· W2912840639 on OpenAlexafffund
Marzieh S. Tahaei, Andrew J. Reader, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCentre For Medical Engineering, King’s College LondonMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilPfizerNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKing's College London
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePositron emission tomographyImage qualityIterative reconstructionComputer scienceKernel (algebra)VoxelPartial volumeComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Image restorationImage resolutionImage processingMathematicsNuclear medicineImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Post-reconstruction positron emission tomography (PET) image restoration methods that take advantage of available anatomical information can play an important role in accurate quantification of PET images. However, when using anatomical information, the resulting PET image may lose resolution in certain regions where the anatomy does not agree with the change in functional activity. In this work, this problem is addressed by using both magnetic resonance (MR) and filtered PET images to guide the denoising process. METHODS: In this work, two novel post-reconstruction methods for restoring PET images using the subject's registered T1-weighted MR image are proposed. The first method is based on a representation of the image using basis functions extracted from T1-weighted MR and filtered PET image. The coefficients for these basis functions are estimated using a sparsity-penalized least squares objective function. The second method is a noniterative fast method that uses guided kernel filtering in combination with twicing to restore the noisy PET image. When applied after conventional PVE correction, these methods can be considered as voxel-based MR-guided partial volume effect (PVE) correction methods. RESULTS: F]FDG data. CONCLUSION: Two methods for restoring PET images were proposed. The methods were evaluated on simulation and real brain images. Most MR-guided PVE correction methods are only based on segmented T1-weighted images and their accuracy is very sensitive to segmentation errors, especially in regions of abnormalities and lesions. However, both proposed methods can use the T1-weighted image without segmentation. The simplicity and the very low computational cost of the second method make it suitable for clinical applications and large data studies. The proposed methods can be naturally extended to PVE correction and denoising of other functional modalities using corresponding anatomical information.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.385 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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