Optimization of reconstruction parameters in [18F]FDG PET brain images aiming scan time reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iterative image reconstruction methods are widely used in PET due to their better image quality when compared to analytical methods. However, inaccurate quantification occurs in low activity concentration regions, which leads to biased quantification of PET images. The diagnosis of some neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, is based on identifying such low-uptake regions. Furthermore, PET imaging in these populations should be as short as possible to limit head movements and improve patient comfort. This work aims to identify optimized reconstruction parameters of [18F]FDG PET brain images aiming to reduce image acquisition time with minimal impact on quantification. For this, [18F]FDG PET images of a Hoffman 3-D brain phantom were acquired. Analytical and iterative reconstruction methods were compared utilizing image quality and quantitative accuracy metrics. OSEM reconstruction algorithm was optimized (4 iterations and 32 subsets). It resulted in remarkably similar images compared to the current clinical settings, with a 50% reduction in scan time (5 min with a post-reconstruction filter of 4 mm). Future clinical studies are needed to confirm the results presented here.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".