4D-CT Attenuation Correction in Respiratory-Gated PET for Hypoxia Imaging: Is It Really Beneficial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous literature has shown that 4D respiratory-gated positron emission tomography (PET) is beneficial for quantitative analysis and defining targets for boosting therapy. However the case for addition of a phase-matched 4D-computed tomography (CT) for attenuation correction (AC) is less clear. We seek to validate the use of 4D-CT for AC and investigate the impact of motion correction for low signal-to-background PET imaging of hypoxia using radiotracers such as FAZA and FMISO. A new insert for the Modus Medicals' QUASAR™ Programmable Respiratory Motion Phantom was developed in which a 3D-printed sphere was placed within the “lung” compartment while an additional compartment is added to simulate muscle/blood compartment required for hypoxia quantification. Experiments are performed at 4:1 or 2:1 signal-to-background ratio consistent with clinical FAZA and FMISO imaging. Motion blur was significant in terms of SUVmax, mean, and peak for motion ≥1 cm and could be significantly reduced (from 20% to 8% at 2-cm motion) for all 4D-PET-gated reconstructions. The effect of attenuation method on precision was significant (σ2 hCT-AC = 5.5%/4.7%/2.7% vs σ2 4D-CT-AC = 0.5%/0.6%/0.7% [max%/peak%/mean% variance]). The simulated hypoxic fraction also significantly decreased under conditions of 2-cm amplitude motion from 55% to 20% and was almost fully recovered (HF = 0.52 for phase-matched 4D-CT) using gated PET. 4D-gated PET is valuable under conditions of low radiotracer uptake found in hypoxia imaging. This work demonstrates the importance of using 4D-CT for AC when performing gated PET based on its significantly improved precision over helical CT.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".