MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184638900 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.120.261881

A Path to Qualification of PET/MRI Scanners for Multicenter Brain Imaging Studies: Evaluation of MRI-Based Attenuation Correction Methods Using a Patient Phantom

2021· article· en· W3184638900 on OpenAlexaff
Ciprian Catana, Richard Laforest, Hongyu An, Fernando E. Boada, Tuoyu Cao, David Faul, Bjoern Jakoby, Floris Jansen, Bradley J. Kemp, Paul E. Kinahan, Peder E. Z. Larson, Michael A. Levine, Piotr Maniawski, Osama Mawlawi, Jonathan McConathy, Alan B. McMillan, Julie C. Price, Abhejit Rajagopal, John J. Sunderland, Patrick Veit‐Haibach, Kristen A. Wangerin, Chunwei Ying, Thomas A. Hope

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsCorrection for attenuationImaging phantomScannerPositron emission tomographyAttenuationComputer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineMedical physicsMedicineArtificial intelligenceRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PET/MRI scanners cannot be qualified in the manner adopted for hybrid PET/CT devices. The main hurdle with qualification in PET/MRI is that attenuation correction (AC) cannot be adequately measured in conventional PET phantoms because of the difficulty in converting the MR images of the physical structures (e.g., plastic) into electron density maps. Over the last decade, a plethora of novel MRI-based algorithms has been developed to more accurately derive the attenuation properties of the human head, including the skull. Although promising, none of these techniques has yet emerged as an optimal and universally adopted strategy for AC in PET/MRI. In this work, we propose a path for PET/MRI qualification for multicenter brain imaging studies. Specifically, our solution is to separate the head AC from the other factors that affect PET data quantification and use a patient as a phantom to assess the former. The emission data collected on the integrated PET/MRI scanner to be qualified should be reconstructed using both MRI- and CT-based AC methods, and whole-brain qualitative and quantitative (both voxelwise and regional) analyses should be performed. The MRI-based approach will be considered satisfactory if the PET quantification bias is within the acceptance criteria specified here. We have implemented this approach successfully across 2 PET/MRI scanner manufacturers at 2 sites.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.365 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207