MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W98196018

3D Model-based partial volume correction for cardiac PET imaging in mice

2011· article· en· W98196018 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Dumouchel, Robert A. deKemp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartial volumeCardiac PETImaging phantomScannerImage resolutionCardiac imagingBiomedical engineeringNuclear medicinePixelPet imagingPositron emission tomographyMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRadiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

204 Objectives Quantitative cardiac PET imaging is limited by spatial resolution. In this study a 3D partial volume correction (PVC) algorithm is developed for mouse LV myocardial imaging. Methods A 3D model of the ECG-gated cardiac geometry and activity was estimated and convolved with the scanner PSF. Regional parameters of the model (LV myocardium, blood and background activity, and epi/endocardial wall borders) were varied to fit measured image data. ECG gated cardiac mouse PET images, with and without noise, were simulated using the MOBY phantom convolved with a Gaussian PSF. Images were simulated with axial pixel sizes of 0.2 and 0.8 mm and resolutions of 1.25 and 1.8 mm. Images were generated with the LV oriented axially and at 20 degrees off-axis. The algorithm was evaluated in six healthy mice injected with 18F-FDG, scanned with the Inveon and reconstructed with 8 ECG gates. Results The PVC reduced bias in LV myocardial activity from 35% to within 5% and decreased the COV from 11-12% to 6-9% on the simulated images, demonstrating the ability to simultaneously improve recovery and homogeneity. With the heart oriented on-axis, an axial resolution of 1.8 mm did not affect the corrected activity, however an axial pixel size of 0.8 mm caused a 3% underestimation (p Conclusions PVC is necessary to restore quantitative accuracy in cardiac imaging. The 3D PVC algorithm explored in this study appears to be a feasible solution to improve quantitative accuracy in mouse heart imaging with PET. Research Support NSERC, CIH

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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