MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111411334 · doi:10.1186/s40658-020-00347-2

Accuracy and precision of zero-echo-time, single- and multi-atlas attenuation correction for dynamic [11C]PE2I PET-MR brain imaging

2020· article· en· W3111411334 on OpenAlexaff
João M. Sousa, Lieuwe Appel, Inès Mérida, Rolf A. Heckemann, Nicolas Costes, Mathias Engström, Stergios Papadimitriou, Dag Nyholm, Håkan Åhlström, Alexander Hammers, Mark Lubberink

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)
FundersUppsala UniversitetAkademiska SjukhusetMedical Research CouncilVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsCorrection for attenuationPutamenNuclear medicineAttenuationCaudate nucleusMedicinePhysicsPositron emission tomographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A valid photon attenuation correction (AC) method is instrumental for obtaining quantitatively correct PET images. Integrated PET/MR systems provide no direct information on attenuation, and novel methods for MR-based AC (MRAC) are still under investigation. Evaluations of various AC methods have mainly focused on static brain PET acquisitions. In this study, we determined the validity of three MRAC methods in a dynamic PET/MR study of the brain. Methods Nine participants underwent dynamic brain PET/MR scanning using the dopamine transporter radioligand [ 11 C]PE2I. Three MRAC methods were evaluated: single-atlas (Atlas), multi-atlas (MaxProb) and zero-echo-time (ZTE). The 68 Ge-transmission data from a previous stand-alone PET scan was used as reference method. Parametric relative delivery (R 1 ) images and binding potential (BP ND ) maps were generated using cerebellar grey matter as reference region. Evaluation was based on bias in MRAC maps, accuracy and precision of [ 11 C]PE2I BP ND and R 1 estimates, and [ 11 C]PE2I time-activity curves. BP ND was examined for striatal regions and R 1 in clusters of regions across the brain. Results For BP ND , ZTE-MRAC showed the highest accuracy (bias < 2%) in striatal regions. Atlas-MRAC exhibited a significant bias in caudate nucleus (− 12%) while MaxProb-MRAC revealed a substantial, non-significant bias in the putamen (9%). R 1 estimates had a marginal bias for all MRAC methods (− 1.0–3.2%). MaxProb-MRAC showed the largest intersubject variability for both R 1 and BP ND . Standardized uptake values (SUV) of striatal regions displayed the strongest average bias for ZTE-MRAC (~ 10%), although constant over time and with the smallest intersubject variability. Atlas-MRAC had highest variation in bias over time (+10 to − 10%), followed by MaxProb-MRAC (+5 to − 5%), but MaxProb showed the lowest mean bias. For the cerebellum, MaxProb-MRAC showed the highest variability while bias was constant over time for Atlas- and ZTE-MRAC. Conclusions Both Maxprob- and ZTE-MRAC performed better than Atlas-MRAC when using a 68 Ge transmission scan as reference method. Overall, ZTE-MRAC showed the highest precision and accuracy in outcome parameters of dynamic [ 11 C]PE2I PET analysis with use of kinetic modelling.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.325
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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