Evaluation of MR anatomically-guided PET reconstruction using a convolutional neural network in PSMA patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background . Recently, approaches have utilized the superior anatomical information provided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to guide the reconstruction of positron emission tomography (PET). One of those approaches is the Bowsher’s prior, which has been accelerated lately with a convolutional neural network (CNN) to reconstruct MR-guided PET in the imaging domain in routine clinical imaging. Two differently trained Bowsher-CNN methods (B-CNN0 and B-CNN) have been trained and tested on brain PET/MR images with non-PSMA tracers, but so far, have not been evaluated in other anatomical regions yet. Methods . A NEMA phantom with five of its six spheres filled with the same, calibrated concentration of 18F-DCFPyL-PSMA, and thirty-two patients (mean age 64 ± 7 years) with biopsy-confirmed PCa were used in this study. Reconstruction with either of the two available Bowsher-CNN methods were performed on the conventional MR-based attenuation correction (MRAC) and T 1 -MR images in the imaging domain. Detectable volume of the spheres and tumors, relative contrast recovery (CR), and background variation (BV) were measured for the MRAC and the Bowsher-CNN images, and qualitative assessment was conducted by ranking the image sharpness and quality by two experienced readers. Results . For the phantom study, the B-CNN produced 12.7% better CR compared to conventional reconstruction. The small sphere volume (<1.8 ml) detectability improved from MRAC to B-CNN by nearly 13%, while measured activity was higher than the ground-truth by 8%. The signal-to-noise ratio, CR, and BV were significantly improved ( p < 0.05) in B-CNN images of the tumor. The qualitative analysis determined that tumor sharpness was excellent in 76% of the PET images reconstructed with the B-CNN method, compared to conventional reconstruction. Conclusions . Applying the MR-guided B-CNN in clinical prostate PET/MR imaging improves some quantitative, as well as qualitative imaging measures. The measured improvements in the phantom are also clearly translated into clinical application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".