MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383908596 · doi:10.3390/medicina59071281

Generation of Conventional 18F-FDG PET Images from 18F-Florbetaben PET Images Using Generative Adversarial Network: A Preliminary Study Using ADNI Dataset

2023· article· en· W4383908596 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hyung Jin Choi, Minjung Seo, Ahro Kim, Seol Hoon Park

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsGenerative adversarial networkArtificial intelligencePositron emission tomographyPet imagingGenerative grammarComputer scienceNuclear medicineMedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) (PETFDG) image can visualize neuronal injury of the brain in Alzheimer’s disease. Early-phase amyloid PET image is reported to be similar to PETFDG image. This study aimed to generate PETFDG images from 18F-florbetaben PET (PETFBB) images using a generative adversarial network (GAN) and compare the generated PETFDG (PETGE-FDG) with real PETFDG (PETRE-FDG) images using the structural similarity index measure (SSIM) and the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). Materials and Methods: Using the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database, 110 participants with both PETFDG and PETFBB images at baseline were included. The paired PETFDG and PETFBB images included six and four subset images, respectively. Each subset image had a 5 min acquisition time. These subsets were randomly sampled and divided into 249 paired PETFDG and PETFBB subset images for the training datasets and 95 paired subset images for the validation datasets during the deep-learning process. The deep learning model used in this study is composed of a GAN with a U-Net. The differences in the SSIM and PSNR values between the PETGE-FDG and PETRE-FDG images in the cycleGAN and pix2pix models were evaluated using the independent Student’s t-test. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: The participant demographics (age, sex, or diagnosis) showed no statistically significant differences between the training (82 participants) and validation (28 participants) groups. The mean SSIM between the PETGE-FDG and PETRE-FDG images was 0.768 ± 0.135 for the cycleGAN model and 0.745 ± 0.143 for the pix2pix model. The mean PSNR was 32.4 ± 9.5 and 30.7 ± 8.0. The PETGE-FDG images of the cycleGAN model showed statistically higher mean SSIM than those of the pix2pix model (p < 0.001). The mean PSNR was also higher in the PETGE-FDG images of the cycleGAN model than those of pix2pix model (p < 0.001). Conclusions: We generated PETFDG images from PETFBB images using deep learning. The cycleGAN model generated PETGE-FDG images with a higher SSIM and PSNR values than the pix2pix model. Image-to-image translation using deep learning may be useful for generating PETFDG images. These may provide additional information for the management of Alzheimer’s disease without extra image acquisition and the consequent increase in radiation exposure, inconvenience, or expenses.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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