Harmonization based on quantitative analysis of standardized uptake value variations across PET/CT scanners: a multicenter phantom study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to measure standardized uptake value (SUV) variations across different PET/computed tomography (CT) scanners to harmonize quantification across systems. METHODS: We acquired images using the National Electrical Manufacturers Association International Electrotechnical Commission phantom from three PET/CT scanners operated using routine imaging protocols at each site. The SUVs of lesions were assessed in the presence of reference values by a digital reference object (DRO) and recommendations by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM/EARL) to measure inter-site variations. For harmonization, Gaussian filters with tuned full width at half maximum (FWHM) values were applied to images to minimize differences in SUVs between reference and images. Inter-site variation of SUVs was evaluated in both pre- and postharmonization situations. Test-retest analysis was also carried out to evaluate repeatability. RESULTS: SUVs from different scanners became significantly more consistent, and inter-site differences decreased for SUV mean , SUV max and SUV peak from 17.3, 20.7, and 15.5% to 4.8, 4.7, and 2.7%, respectively, by harmonization ( P values <0.05 for all). The values for contrast-to-noise ratio in the smallest lesion of the phantom verified preservation of image quality following harmonization (>2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Harmonization significantly lowered variations in SUV measurements across different PET/CT scanners, improving reproducibility while preserving image quality.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".