MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045374016 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aba8b5

Impact of image reconstruction method on dose distributions derived from <sup>90</sup> Y PET images: phantom and liver radioembolization patient studies

2020· article· en· W3045374016 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinchi Hou, Hillgan Ma, Pedro L. Esquinas, Carlos Uribe, Stefano Tolhurst, François Bénard, David Liu, Arman Rahmim, A. Ćeller

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImaging phantomNuclear medicineIterative reconstructionPhysicsMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract PET images acquired after liver 90 Y radioembolization therapies are typically very noisy, which significantly challenges both visualization and quantification of activity distributions. To improve their noise characteristics, regularized iterative reconstruction algorithms such as block sequential regularized expectation maximization (Q.Clear for GE Healthcare, USA) have been proposed. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects which different reconstruction algorithms may have on patient images, with reconstruction parameters initially narrowed down using phantom studies. Moreover, we evaluated the impact of these reconstruction methods on voxel-based dose distribution in phantom and patient studies (lesions and healthy livers). The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)/NEMA phantom, containing six spheres, was filled with 90 Y and imaged using a GE Discovery 690 PET/CT scanner with time-of-flight enabled. The images were reconstructed using Q.Clear (with β parameter ranging from 0 to 8000) and ordered subsets expectation maximization. The image quality and quantification accuracy were evaluated by computing the hot ( Q H ) and cold ( Q C ) contrast recovery coefficients, background variability (BV) and activity bias. Next, dose distributions and dose volume histograms were generated using MIM® software’s SurePlan LiverY90 toolbox. Subsequently, parameters optimized in these phantom studies were applied to five patient datasets. Dose parameters, such as D max , D mean , D 70 , and V 100 Gy , were estimated, and their variability for different reconstruction methods was investigated. Based on phantom studies, the β parameter values optimized for image quality and quantification accuracy were 2500 and 300, respectively. When all investigated reconstructions were applied to patient studies, D mean , D 50 , D 70 , and V 100 Gy showed coefficients of variation below 8%; whereas the variability of D max was up to 30% for both phantom and patient images. Although β = 300 − 1000 would provide accurate activity quantification for a region of interest, when considering activity/dose voxelized distribution, higher β value (e.g. 4000–5000) would provide the greatest accuracy for dose distributions. In this 90 Y radioembolization PET/CT study, the β parameter in regularized iterative (Q.Clear) reconstruction was investigated for image quality, accurate quantification and dose distributions based on phantom experiments and then applied to patient studies. Our results indicate that more accurate dose distribution can be achieved from smoother PET images, reconstructed with larger β values than those yielding the best activity quantifications but noisy images. Most importantly, these results suggest that quantitative measures, which are commonly used in clinics, such as SUV max or SUV peak ( equivalent of D max ), should not be employed for 90 Y PET images, since their values would highly depend on the image reconstruction.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207