MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954642743 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2019.2927199

Use of a Tracer-Specific Deep Artificial Neural Net to Denoise Dynamic PET Images

2019· article· en· W2954642743 on OpenAlexafffund
Ivan S. Klyuzhin, Ju-Chieh Cheng, Connor Bevington, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTRACERArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionDynamic imagingImage processingImage (mathematics)Digital image processingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of kinetic modeling (KM) on a voxel level in dynamic PET images frequently suffers from high levels of noise, drastically reducing the precision of parametric image analysis. In this paper, we investigate the use of machine learning and artificial neural networks to denoise dynamic PET images. We train a deep denoising autoencoder (DAE) using noisy and noise-free spatiotemporal image patches, extracted from the simulated images of [ <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">11</sup> C]raclopride, a dopamine D2 receptor agonist. The DAE-processed dynamic and corresponding parametric images (simulated and acquired) are compared with those obtained with conventional denoising techniques, including temporal and spatial Gaussian smoothing, iterative spatiotemporal smoothing/deconvolution, and the highly constrained backprojection processing (HYPR). The simulated (acquired) parametric image non-uniformity was 7.75% (19.49%) with temporal and 5.90% (14.50%) with spatial smoothing, 5.82% (16.21%) with smoothing/deconvolution, 5.49% (13.38%) with HYPR, and 3.52% (11.41%) with DAE. The DAE also produced the best results in terms of the coefficient of variation of voxel values and structural similarity index. Denoising-induced bias in the regional mean binding potential was 7.8% with temporal and 26.31% with spatial smoothing, 28.61% with smoothing/deconvolution, 27.63% with HYPR, and 14.8% with DAE. When the test data did not match the training data, erroneous outcomes were obtained. Our results demonstrate that a deep DAE can provide a substantial reduction in the voxel-level noise compared with the conventional spatiotemporal denoising methods while introducing a similar or lower amount of bias. The better DAE performance comes at the cost of lower generality and requiring appropriate training data.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207