MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3170384815

Elastic motion correction improves Rb-82 Cardiac PET ECG-gated image quality

2021· article· en· W3170384815 on OpenAlexaff
Christiane Wiefels, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Terrence D. Ruddy, Rob Beanlands, Robert A. deKemp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage qualityGated SPECTNuclear medicineIterative reconstructionVentricleMyocardial perfusion imagingContrast-to-noise ratioGaussian filterScannerStandard deviationPhysicsMedicinePerfusionBiomedical engineeringArtificial intelligenceGaussianMathematicsComputer scienceEjection fractionRadiologyInternal medicineImage (mathematics)Heart failure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

23 Objectives: ECG-gated imaging for evaluation of left ventricular (LV) contractile function is an integral part of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) but can be challenging with Rb-82 due to the short half-life and low count-statistics. Motion-compensated image reconstruction was reported recently on some latest-generation PET-CT scanners, but has not been optimized for Rb-82 PET MPI. This study evaluated the effect of elastic motion-compensated (MOCO) image reconstruction on ECG-gated Rb-82 PET image quality. Methods: ECG-gated and ungated (static) images were analyzed at rest and stress from N=20 sequential patients referred for Rb-82 MPI (9 MBq/kg) on a PET-CT scanner with ≍200 ps time-of-flight (TOF) resolution. Standard (no-MOCO) ECG-gated images were reconstructed using 6 mm Gaussian filter, and used to estimate contractile and respiratory motion vector fields (MVF). Additional ECG-gated images were then reconstructed using the contractile-MVF (single-MOCO) and combined respiratory- and contractile-MVF (dual-MOCO) information integrated into the iterative reconstruction algorithm (OSEM with 4 iterations and 5 subsets). Static (ungated) images at rest were also reconstructed using 2, 4, 6 mm Gaussian filters for comparison of image quality. Myocardium signal recovery was measured as the maximum activity in the left ventricle (LV) at end-diastole (ED). Background signal and noise were measured as the left atrium blood cavity mean and standard deviation, also at the ED phase. LV myocardium signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and myocardium-to-blood contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) values were calculated for the static and ECG-gated images. SNR and CNR were compared between reconstruction methods using paired t-tests. Results: End-diastolic image SNR and CNR increased in 95% (or 55%) of patients at rest using single-MOCO (or dual-MOCO) compared to standard ECG-gated reconstruction. Similarly at stress, SNR and CNR increased in 100% (or 60%) of patients using single-MOCO (or dual-MOCO) reconstruction. Single-MOCO reconstruction significantly improved SNR (+48%) and CNR (+51%), both at stress (+43%) and rest (+56%) (all P P > 0.01), with 40% of scans resulting in lower image quality compared to the standard (no-MOCO) gated reconstruction. The dual-MOCO gated images reconstructed with 6mm filter had image SNR and CNR that were similar to static ungated image reconstructed with 2 mm filtering, whereas the single-MOCO gated images were similar to the static images with 4 mm filtering. Both single- and dual-MOCO images had lower SNR and CNR compared to the static images reconstructed with the same 6 mm filter, suggesting that there was some residual noise in the single-MOCO estimated MVF that could be further improved. Image quality (SNR and CNR) decreased with patient weight (both P < 0.05), likely due to increased attenuation effects despite the use of proportional weight-based dosing, suggesting that larger patients require even higher administered activity to achieve uniform image quality. Conclusions: Single (contractile) motion-compensated image reconstruction improved the end-diastolic image SNR and CNR over standard uncompensated or dual motion-compensated image reconstruction, and is recommended for optimal ECG-gated image quality using Rb-82 on a current-generation TOF PET-CT scanner.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→