Pseudo-MRI-Guided PET Image Reconstruction Method Based on a Diffusion Probabilistic Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anatomically guided PET reconstruction using MRI information has been shown to have the potential to improve PET image quality. However, these improvements are limited to PET scans with paired MRI information. In this work we employed a diffusion probabilistic model (DPM) to infer T1-weighted-MRI (deep-MRI) images from FDG-PET brain images. We then use the DPM-generated T1w-MRI to guide the PET reconstruction. The model was trained with brain FDG scans, and tested in datasets containing multiple levels of counts. Deep-MRI images appeared somewhat degraded than the acquired MRI images. Regarding PET image quality, volume of interest analysis in different brain regions showed that both PET reconstructed images using the acquired and the deep-MRI images improved image quality compared to OSEM. Same conclusions were found analysing the decimated datasets. A subjective evaluation performed by two physicians confirmed that OSEM scored consistently worse than the MRI-guided PET images and no significant differences were observed between the MRI-guided PET images. This proof of concept shows that it is possible to infer DPM-based MRI imagery to guide the PET reconstruction, enabling the possibility of changing reconstruction parameters such as the strength of the prior on anatomically guided PET reconstruction in the absence of MRI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".