Quantitative PET in the 2020s: a roadmap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) plays an increasingly important role in research and clinical applications, catalysed by remarkable technical advances and a growing appreciation of the need for reliable, sensitive biomarkers of human function in health and disease. Over the last 30 years, a large amount of the physics and engineering effort in PET has been motivated by the dominant clinical application during that period, oncology. This has led to important developments such as PET/CT, whole-body PET, 3D PET, accelerated statistical image reconstruction, and time-of-flight PET. Despite impressive improvements in image quality as a result of these advances, the emphasis on static, semi-quantitative 'hot spot' imaging for oncologic applications has meant that the capability of PET to quantify biologically relevant parameters based on tracer kinetics has not been fully exploited. More recent advances, such as PET/MR and total-body PET, have opened up the ability to address a vast range of new research questions, from which a future expansion of applications and radiotracers appears highly likely. Many of these new applications and tracers will, at least initially, require quantitative analyses that more fully exploit the exquisite sensitivity of PET and the tracer principle on which it is based. It is also expected that they will require more sophisticated quantitative analysis methods than those that are currently available. At the same time, artificial intelligence is revolutionizing data analysis and impacting the relationship between the statistical quality of the acquired data and the information we can extract from the data. In this roadmap, leaders of the key sub-disciplines of the field identify the challenges and opportunities to be addressed over the next ten years that will enable PET to realise its full quantitative potential, initially in research laboratories and, ultimately, in clinical practice.
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 | 0.034 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".