MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Deep Learning Aided Motion Correction for Low-Dose Brain PET

2023· article· en· W4389665685 on OpenAlexaff
Eigil Reimers, J.-C. K. Cheng, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNuclear medicineMotion (physics)Computer visionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously developed a deep learning (DL) aided PET motion correction method which successfully detected and corrected for head motion in the situation of a rapidly changing tracer distribution such as the initial tracer uptake period – immediately after injection. Here we extend this data driven method to a general low-dose scenario where tracer distribution is relatively constant but available counts are very low, such as for low-dose imaging. Data from four tracers were used ([11C]-RAC, [18F]-FDG, [11C]-PBR, and [11C]-DTBZ) to form a representative dataset for training and testing of a model capable of mapping low-count, high temporal resolution frames (acquired during a low-count period of the scan), to higher-count frames containing better structural features than the original low-count frames. The ability to recover a known motion trace that was artificially injected into low-count subject data was tested. The use of the DL model reduced the standard deviation of the motion estimation error from 0.5 mm and 0.8 degrees (when registration was performed without the aid of DL) to 0.3 mm and 0.5 degrees. These results were then validated with real human motion using the estimated motion from simultaneous fMRI acquisition as the ground truth.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→