PET image enhancement using artificial intelligence for better characterization of epilepsy lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: F]FDG) brain PET is used clinically to detect small areas of decreased uptake associated with epileptogenic lesions, e.g., Focal Cortical Dysplasias (FCD) but its performance is limited due to spatial resolution and low contrast. We aimed to develop a deep learning-based PET image enhancement method using simulated PET to improve lesion visualization. Methods: F]FDG scans. We trained a ResNet on 80% of this dataset (10% used for validation) to learn the mapping between S-SQ and GT-HQ PET, outputting a predicted HQ (P-HQ) PET. For the remaining 10%, we assessed Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM), and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) against GT-HQ PET. For GM and WM, we computed recovery coefficients (RC) and coefficient of variation (COV). We also created lesioned GT-HQ phantoms, S-SQ PET and P-HQ PET with simulated small hypometabolic lesions characteristic of FCDs. We evaluated lesion detectability on S-SQ and P-HQ PET both visually and measuring the Relative Lesion Activity (RLA, measured activity in the reduced-activity ROI over the standard-activity ROI). Lastly, we applied our previously trained ResNet on 10 clinical epilepsy PETs to predict the corresponding HQ-PET and assessed image quality and confidence metrics. Results: Compared to S-SQ PET, P-HQ PET improved PNSR, SSIM and RMSE; significatively improved GM RCs (from 0.29 ± 0.03 to 0.79 ± 0.04) and WM RCs (from 0.49 ± 0.03 to 1 ± 0.05); mean COVs were not statistically different. Visual lesion detection improved from 38 to 75%, with average RLA decreasing from 0.83 ± 0.08 to 0.67 ± 0.14. Visual quality of P-HQ clinical PET improved as well as reader confidence. Conclusion: P-HQ PET showed improved image quality compared to S-SQ PET across several objective quantitative metrics and increased detectability of simulated lesions. In addition, the model generalized to clinical data. Further evaluation is required to study generalization of our method and to assess clinical performance in larger cohorts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".