MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225260098 · doi:10.1186/s40658-021-00429-9

Quantitative evaluation of PSMA PET imaging using a realistic anthropomorphic phantom and shell-less radioactive epoxy lesions

2022· article· en· W4225260098 on OpenAlexafffund
Roberto Fedrigo, D.J. Kadrmas, Patricia E. Edem, Lauren Fougner, Ivan S. Klyuzhin, M Petrić, François Bénard, Arman Rahmim, Carlos Uribe

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImaging phantomNuclear medicineSegmentationPositron emission tomographyContext (archaeology)Prostate cancerIterative reconstructionMedicineBiomedical engineeringPhysicsComputer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligenceCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Positron emission tomography (PET) with prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) have shown superior performance in detecting metastatic prostate cancers. Relative to [ 18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([ 18 F]FDG) PET images, PSMA PET images tend to visualize significantly higher-contrast focal lesions. We aim to evaluate segmentation and reconstruction algorithms in this emerging context. Specifically, Bayesian or maximum a posteriori (MAP) image reconstruction, compared to standard ordered subsets expectation maximization (OSEM) reconstruction, has received significant interest for its potential to reach convergence with minimal noise amplifications. However, few phantom studies have evaluated the quantitative accuracy of such reconstructions for high contrast, small lesions (sub-10 mm) that are typically observed in PSMA images. In this study, we cast 3 mm–16-mm spheres using epoxy resin infused with a long half-life positron emitter (sodium-22; 22 Na) to simulate prostate cancer metastasis. The anthropomorphic Probe-IQ phantom, which features a liver, bladder, lungs, and ureters, was used to model relevant anatomy. Dynamic PET acquisitions were acquired and images were reconstructed with OSEM (varying subsets and iterations) and BSREM (varying β parameters), and the effects on lesion quantitation were evaluated. Results The 22 Na lesions were scanned against an aqueous solution containing fluorine-18 ( 18 F) as the background. Regions-of-interest were drawn with MIM Software using 40% fixed threshold (40% FT) and a gradient segmentation algorithm (MIM’s PET Edge + ). Recovery coefficients (RCs) (max, mean, peak, and newly defined “apex”), metabolic tumour volume (MTV), and total tumour uptake (TTU) were calculated for each sphere. SUV peak and SUV apex had the most consistent RCs for different lesion-to-background ratios and reconstruction parameters. The gradient-based segmentation algorithm was more accurate than 40% FT for determining MTV and TTU, particularly for lesions $$\le$$ ≤ 6 mm in diameter ( R 2 = 0.979–0.996 vs. R 2 = 0.115–0.527, respectively). Conclusion An anthropomorphic phantom was used to evaluate quantitation for PSMA PET imaging of metastatic prostate cancer lesions. BSREM with β = 200–400 and OSEM with 2–5 iterations resulted in the most accurate and robust measurements of SUV mean , MTV, and TTU for imaging conditions in 18 F-PSMA PET/CT images. SUV apex , a hybrid metric of SUV max and SUV peak , was proposed for robust, accurate, and segmentation-free quantitation of lesions for PSMA PET.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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