Deep Learning–Based Attenuation Correction Improves Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac SPECT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve diagnostic accuracy, myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) SPECT studies can use CT-based attenuation correction (AC). However, CT-based AC is not available for most SPECT systems in clinical use, increases radiation exposure, and is impacted by misregistration. We developed and externally validated a deep-learning model to generate simulated AC images directly from non-AC (NC) SPECT, without the need for CT. <b>Methods:</b> SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging was performed using <sup>99m</sup>Tc-sestamibi or <sup>99m</sup>Tc-tetrofosmin on contemporary scanners with solid-state detectors. We developed a conditional generative adversarial neural network that applies a deep learning model (DeepAC) to generate simulated AC SPECT images. The model was trained with short-axis NC and AC images performed at 1 site (<i>n</i> = 4,886) and was tested on patients from 2 separate external sites (<i>n</i> = 604). We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the stress total perfusion deficit (TPD) obtained from NC, AC, and DeepAC images for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) with area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve. We also quantified the direct count change among AC, NC, and DeepAC images on a per-voxel basis. <b>Results:</b> DeepAC could be obtained in less than 1 s from NC images; area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve for obstructive CAD was higher for DeepAC TPD (0.79; 95% CI, 0.72–0.85) than for NC TPD (0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.78; <i>P</i> < 0.001) and similar to AC TPD (0.81; 95% CI, 0.75–0.87; <i>P</i> = 0.196). The normalcy rate in the low-likelihood-of-coronary-disease population was higher for DeepAC TPD (70.4%) and AC TPD (75.0%) than for NC TPD (54.6%, <i>P</i> < 0.001 for both). The positive count change (increase in counts) was significantly higher for AC versus NC (median, 9.4; interquartile range, 6.0–14.2; <i>P</i> < 0.001) than for AC versus DeepAC (median, 2.4; interquartile range, 1.3–4.2). <b>Conclusion:</b> In an independent external dataset, DeepAC provided improved diagnostic accuracy for obstructive CAD, as compared with NC images, and this accuracy was similar to that of actual AC. DeepAC simplifies the task of artifact identification for physicians, avoids misregistration artifacts, and can be performed rapidly without the need for CT hardware and additional acquisitions.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".