MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319454742 · doi:10.21037/qims-22-443

Multicenter quantitative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography performance harmonization: use of hottest voxels towards more robust quantification

2023· article· en· W4319454742 on OpenAlexaff
Habibeh Vosoughi, Mehdi Momennezhad, Farshad Emami, Mohsen Hajizadeh, Arman Rahmim, Parham Geramifar

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMashhad University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsVoxelImaging phantomNuclear medicinePositron emission tomographyMean squared errorStandardized uptake valueScannerReproducibilityCoefficient of variationComputer scienceMathematicsMedical physicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Harmonization methods reduce variability between different make and models of positron emission tomography (PET) scanners. The study aims to explore harmonization strategies that lead to comparable and robust quantitative metrics in a multicenter setting. Methods: NEMA IEC Phantom data acquisition was performed for low and high spheres-to-background ratios (SBR4:1 and 10:1) on six PET/CT (computed tomography) scanners. Different reconstruction sets, including the number of sub-iterations, number of subsets, and full width at half maximum (FWHM) for each scanner, were evaluated towards optimized and harmonized reconstruction settings. Recovery coefficients (RCs) of four quantitative metrics, including standardized uptake value (SUV)max, SUVISO-50 (SUVmean in 50% isocontour), SUVpeak, and mean uptake of 10 highest concentration voxels were evaluated as RCmax, RCISO-50, RCpeak, and RC10V, representing percent difference relative to the static ground truth case as functions of sphere sizes. A set of image reconstruction parameters was proposed for harmonized reconstruction to minimize variability between scanners. The root mean square error (RMSE), curvature, and reproducibility were examined. The proposed reconstruction protocols for harmonization and standard clinical reconstruction settings were compared to each other across all scanners. Results: A significant difference (P value <0.0001) was observed in the aforementioned quantitative metrics between SBR10 and SBR4. Reconstruction parameter sets with the smallest RMSE and RC values within 10% bias were identified as the best candidate for harmonization. The coefficient of variation of the mean value of RCs (CVMRC) shows a remarkable reduction of about 28%, 26%, 32%, and 19% in harmonized reconstruction settings for MRCmax, MRCISO-50, MRCpeak, and MRC10V, respectively. CVMRC for MRC10V in the harmonized reconstruction setting was 5.9% in SBR4, while the smallest value in SBR10 belongs to MRCpeak, with a value of 5.8%. The reproducibility of RC is improved by deriving the value from ten hottest voxels and is equally reproducible with RCpeak. Compared to RCmax and RCISO-50, the variability is reduced by 18% and 22% if ten voxels are pooled. Conclusions: Harmonizing PET/CT systems with and without point spread function/time of flight (PSF/TOF) using various vendor-developed image reconstruction algorithms improves the quantification reproducibility. RC10V, likewise RCpeak, is superior to the rest of the quantitative indices in terms of accuracy and reproducibility and helpful in quantifying lesion volume below 1 mL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207