Clinical and Deep-Learned Evaluation of MR-Guided Self-Supervised PET Reconstruction

Reduced dose Positron Emission Tomography (PET) lowers the radiation dose to patients and reduces costs. Lower count data, however, degrades reconstructed image quality. Advanced reconstruction methods help mitigate image quality losses, but it is important to assess the resulting images from a clinical perspective. Two experienced clinicians assessed four PET reconstruction algorithms for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG brain data, compared to a clinical standard reference (Maximum-Likelihood Expectation-Maximization (MLEM)), based on seven clinical image quality metrics: global quality rating, pattern recognition, diagnostic confidence (all on a scale of 0-4), sharpness, caudate-putamen separation, noise, and contrast (on a scale between 0-2). The reconstruction methods assessed were a guided and unguided version of self-supervised maximum <i>a posteriori</i> EM (MAPEM) (where the guidance case used the patient's MR image to control the smoothness penalty). For 3 of the 11 patient datasets reconstructed, post-smoothed versions of the MAPEM reconstruction were also considered, where the smoothing was with the point-spread-function used in the resolution modelling. Statistically significant improvements were observed in sharpness, caudate-putamen separation, and contrast for self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM compared to MLEM. For example, MLEM scored between 1-1.1 out of 2 for sharpness, caudate-putamen separation and contrast, whereas self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM scored between 1.5-1.75. In addition to the clinical evaluation, pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) were used to assess the image quality of a further 62 images. The CNNs demonstrated similar trends to the clinician, showing their potential as automated standalone observers. Both the clinical and CNN assessments suggest when using only 5% of the standard injected dose, self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM reconstruction matches the 100% MLEM case for overall performance. This makes the images far more clinically useful than standard MLEM.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences
Published
2024-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/trpms.2024.3496779
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.40

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical and Deep-Learned Evaluation of MR-Guided Self-Supervised PET Reconstruction

Anthime Flaus, Jessica B. Hopson, Andrew J. Reader, Colm J. McGinnity et al.
1 citations
IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
0.40
article

Clinical and Deep-Learned Evaluation of MR-Guided Self-Supervised PET Reconstruction

Anthime Flaus, Jessica B. Hopson, Andrew J. Reader, Colm J. McGinnity, Alexander Hammers, Radhouène Neji, Sam Ellis
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Reduced dose Positron Emission Tomography (PET) lowers the radiation dose to patients and reduces costs. Lower count data, however, degrades reconstructed image quality. Advanced reconstruction methods help mitigate image quality losses, but it is important to assess the resulting images from a clinical perspective. Two experienced clinicians assessed four PET reconstruction algorithms for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG brain data, compared to a clinical standard reference (Maximum-Likelihood Expectation-Maximization (MLEM)), based on seven clinical image quality metrics: global quality rating, pattern recognition, diagnostic confidence (all on a scale of 0-4), sharpness, caudate-putamen separation, noise, and contrast (on a scale between 0-2). The reconstruction methods assessed were a guided and unguided version of self-supervised maximum <i>a posteriori</i> EM (MAPEM) (where the guidance case used the patient's MR image to control the smoothness penalty). For 3 of the 11 patient datasets reconstructed, post-smoothed versions of the MAPEM reconstruction were also considered, where the smoothing was with the point-spread-function used in the resolution modelling. Statistically significant improvements were observed in sharpness, caudate-putamen separation, and contrast for self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM compared to MLEM. For example, MLEM scored between 1-1.1 out of 2 for sharpness, caudate-putamen separation and contrast, whereas self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM scored between 1.5-1.75. In addition to the clinical evaluation, pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) were used to assess the image quality of a further 62 images. The CNNs demonstrated similar trends to the clinician, showing their potential as automated standalone observers. Both the clinical and CNN assessments suggest when using only 5% of the standard injected dose, self-supervised MR-guided MAPEM reconstruction matches the 100% MLEM case for overall performance. This makes the images far more clinically useful than standard MLEM.

IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical SciencesVol. 9(3)
King's College London (GB), King's College School (GB)
King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Centre For Medical Engineering, King’s College London
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
0.40
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.