Artificial Intelligence–Driven Single-Shot PET Image Artifact Detection and Disentanglement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medical imaging artifacts compromise image quality and quantitative analysis and might confound interpretation and misguide clinical decision-making. The present work envisions and demonstrates a new paradigm PET image Quality Assurance NETwork (PET-QA-NET) in which various image artifacts are detected and disentangled from images without prior knowledge of a standard of reference or ground truth for routine PET image quality assurance. METHODS: The network was trained and evaluated using training/validation/testing data sets consisting of 669/100/100 artifact-free oncological 18 F-FDG PET/CT images and subsequently fine-tuned and evaluated on 384 (20% for fine-tuning) scans from 8 different PET centers. The developed DL model was quantitatively assessed using various image quality metrics calculated for 22 volumes of interest defined on each scan. In addition, 200 additional 18 F-FDG PET/CT scans (this time with artifacts), generated using both CT-based attenuation and scatter correction (routine PET) and PET-QA-NET, were blindly evaluated by 2 nuclear medicine physicians for the presence of artifacts, diagnostic confidence, image quality, and the number of lesions detected in different body regions. RESULTS: Across the volumes of interest of 100 patients, SUV MAE values of 0.13 ± 0.04, 0.24 ± 0.1, and 0.21 ± 0.06 were reached for SUV mean , SUV max , and SUV peak , respectively (no statistically significant difference). Qualitative assessment showed a general trend of improved image quality and diagnostic confidence and reduced image artifacts for PET-QA-NET compared with routine CT-based attenuation and scatter correction. CONCLUSION: We developed a highly effective and reliable quality assurance tool that can be embedded routinely to detect and correct for 18 F-FDG PET image artifacts in clinical setting with notably improved PET image quality and quantitative capabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".