MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388739347 · doi:10.1109/trpms.2023.3333202

Deep-Learning-Aided Intraframe Motion Correction for Low-Count Dynamic Brain PET

2023· article· en· W4388739347 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Reimers, Ju-Chieh Cheng, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Engineering Research Council
KeywordsTemporal resolutionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkComputer visionNoise (video)Frame (networking)Motion (physics)Pattern recognition (psychology)PhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data-driven intraframe motion correction of a dynamic brain PET scan (with each frame duration on the order of minutes) is often achieved through the co-registration of high-temporal-resolution (e.g., 1-s duration) subframes to estimate subject head motion. However, this conventional method of subframe co-registration may perform poorly during periods of low counts and/or drastic changes in the spatial tracer distribution over time. Here, we propose a deep learning (DL), U-Net-based convolutional neural network model which aids in the PET motion estimation to overcome these limitations. Unlike DL models for PET denoising, a nonstandard 2.5-D DL model was used which transforms the high-temporal-resolution subframes into nonquantitative DL subframes which allow for improved differentiation between noise and structural/functional landmarks and estimate a constant tracer distribution across time. When estimating motion during periods of drastic change in spatial distribution (within the first minute of the scan, ~1-s temporal resolution), the proposed DL method was found to reduce the expected magnitude of error (+/−) in the estimation for an artificially injected motion trace from 16 mm and 7° (conventional method) to 0.7 mm and 0.6° (DL method). During periods of low counts but a relatively constant spatial tracer distribution (60th min of the scan, ~1-s temporal resolution), an expected error was reduced from 0.5 mm and 0.7° (conventional method) to 0.3 mm and 0.4° (DL method). The use of the DL method was found to significantly improve the accuracy of an image-derived input function calculation when motion was present during the first minute of the scan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueIEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical SciencesSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207