ArticleThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2012
Poisson noise obscures hypometabolic lesions in PET.
Article in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A method for comparing intra-tumoural radioactivity uptake heterogeneity in preclinical positron emission tomography studies.EJNMMI physics · 2015Article
- Computer-Aided Diagnosis and Localization of Lateralized Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Using Interictal FDG-PET.Frontiers in neurology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The technology of fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) has drastically increased our ability to visualize the metabolic process of numerous neurological diseases. The relationship between the methodological noise sources inherent to PET technology and the resulting noise in the reconstructed image is complex. In this study, we use Monte Carlo simulations to examine the effect of Poisson noise in the PET signal on the noise in reconstructed space for two pervasive reconstruction algorithms: the historical filtered back-projection (FBP) and the more modern expectation maximization (EM). We confirm previous observations that the image reconstructed with the FBP biases all intensity values toward the mean, likely due to spatial spreading of high intensity voxels. However, we demonstrate that in both algorithms the variance from high intensity voxels spreads to low intensity voxels and obliterates their signal to noise ratio. This finding has profound impacts on the clinical interpretation of hypometabolic lesions. Our results suggest that PET is relatively insensitive when it comes to detecting and quantifying changes in hypometabolic tissue. Further, the images reconstructed with EM visually match the original images more closely, but more detailed analysis reveals as much as a 40 percent decrease in the signal to noise ratio for high intensity voxels relative to the FBP. This suggests that even though the apparent spatial resolution of EM outperforms FBP, the signal to noise ratio of the intensity of each voxel may be higher in the FBP. Therefore, EM may be most appropriate for manual visualization of pathology, but FBP should be used when analyzing quantitative markers of the PET signal. This suggestion that different reconstruction algorithms should be used for quantification versus visualization represents a major paradigm shift in the analysis and interpretation of PET images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23239953PMC3516894What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.