MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394722913 · doi:10.3389/fnume.2024.1372379

Deep-learning-derived input function in dynamic [18F]FDG PET imaging of mice

2024· article· en· W4394722913 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Kuttner, Luigi Tommaso Luppino, Laurence Convert, Otman Sarrhini, Roger Lecomte, Michael Kampffmeyer, Rune Sundset, Robert Jenssen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nuclear Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsQ & T ResearchUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersTromsø Forskningsstiftelse
KeywordsPet imagingDynamic imagingFunction (biology)Deep learningNuclear medicinePositron emission tomographyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineBiologyImage (mathematics)Image processingCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic positron emission tomography and kinetic modeling play a critical role in tracer development research using small animals. Kinetic modeling from dynamic PET imaging requires accurate knowledge of an input function, ideally determined through arterial blood sampling. Arterial cannulation in mice, however, requires complex, time-consuming and terminal surgery, meaning that longitudinal studies are impossible. The aim of the current work was to develop and evaluate a non-invasive, deep-learning-based prediction model (DLIF) that directly takes the PET data as input to predict a usable input function. We first trained and evaluated the DLIF model on 68 [ 18 F]Fluorodeoxyglucose mouse scans with image-derived targets using cross validation. Subsequently, we evaluated the performance of a trained DLIF model on an external dataset consisting of 8 mouse scans where the input function was measured by continuous arterial blood sampling. The results showed that the predicted DLIF and image-derived targets were similar, and the net influx rate constants following from Patlak modeling using DLIF as input function were strongly correlated to the corresponding values obtained using the image-derived input function. There were somewhat larger discrepancies when evaluating the model on the external dataset, which could be attributed to systematic differences in the experimental setup between the two datasets. In conclusion, our non-invasive DLIF prediction method may be a viable alternative to arterial blood sampling in small animal [ 18 F]FDG imaging. With further validation, DLIF could overcome the need for arterial cannulation and allow fully quantitative and longitudinal experiments in PET imaging studies of mice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Nuclear MedicineSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207