MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An objective evaluation method for head motion estimation in PET—Motion corrected centroid-of-distribution

2022· article· en· W4306407152 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Sun, Enette Mae Revilla, Jiazhen Zhang, Kathryn Fontaine, Takuya Toyonaga, Jean‐Dominique Gallezot, Tim Mulnix, John A. Onofrey, Richard E. Carson, Yihuan Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCentroidComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage qualityMotion (physics)Ground truthAlgorithmNuclear medicineMathematicsImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Head motion presents a continuing problem in brain PET studies. A wealth of motion correction (MC) algorithms had been proposed in the past, including both hardware-based methods and data-driven methods. However, in most real brain PET studies, in the absence of ground truth or gold standard of motion information, it is challenging to objectively evaluate MC quality. For MC evaluation, image-domain metrics, e.g., standardized uptake value (SUV) change before and after MC are commonly used, but this measure lacks objectivity because 1) other factors, e.g., attenuation correction, scatter correction and parameters used in the reconstruction, will confound MC effectiveness; 2) SUV only reflects final image quality, and it cannot precisely inform when an MC method performed well or poorly during the scan time period; 3) SUV is tracer-dependent and head motion may cause increases or decreases in SUV for different tracers, so evaluating MC effectiveness is complicated. Here, we present a new algorithm, i.e., motion corrected centroid-of-distribution (MCCOD) to perform objective quality control for measured or estimated rigid motion information. MCCOD is a three-dimensional surrogate trace of the center of tracer distribution after performing rigid MC using the existing motion information. MCCOD is used to inform whether the motion information is accurate, using the PET raw data only, i.e., without PET image reconstruction, where inaccurate motion information typically leads to abrupt changes in the MCCOD trace. MCCOD was validated using simulation studies and was tested on real studies acquired from both time-of-flight (TOF) and non-TOF scanners. A deep learning-based brain mask segmentation was implemented, which is shown to be necessary for non-TOF MCCOD generation. MCCOD is shown to be effective in detecting abrupt translation motion errors in slowly varying tracer distribution caused by the motion tracking hardware and can be used to compare different motion estimation methods as well as to improve existing motion information.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207